[ad_1]
It is confirmed that the victims of the comfort women told the Constitutional Court that the 2015 agreement on "comfort women" concluded between Korea and Japan violated their fundamental rights, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the victims did not have the necessary conditions to file a constitutional complaint.
On May 5, the Foreign Ministry said: "In the case of a constitutional complaint that the comforting women of comfort women are violating the human rights of comforted women, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has submitted the response to in June of this year, in accordance with the constitutional appeal procedure ".
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in its response that it was difficult to see that the agreement that is not legally binding (the agreement reached between Korea and Japan in 2015) is not a treatise. It is therefore difficult to regard it as a direct violation of the human rights of the victims ", he said.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a reply to the Constitutional Court requesting that the case be closed. Excellence means not following up on a constitutional complaint if the party seeking the constitutional motion does not meet the requirements before the judgment.
The ministry acknowledged in its response that the content of the agreement on comfort women was not justified. The Foreign Ministry said: "We have humbly accepted that the consensus of Korea-Japan comfort women in 2015 was not a real solution for the victims of the comfort women of the Japanese army and that they did not reflect not the will of the latter, I said.
"As I have said time and time again, the Foreign Ministry said:" The consensus, such as comfort women's consent in 2015, is that the problem of women comforting the army Japanese can not be fundamentally solved. "The problem is that the honor and dignity of the victims must be restored, I think it is possible."
On March 27, 2016, women victims of comfort (29 survivors, 8 survivors, 2016) and their families filed a constitutional complaint claiming that the consent and announcement of South Korean comfort women violated victims' human rights. .
Accompaniment of comfort women, "exercise of public power & # 39;
Law on the Constitutional Court, Article 68 of the Constitutional Court, According to this clause, in order to form a constitutional complaint, it is necessary "to violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution through the exercise of power public or unfortunate gesture ".
The Foreign Ministry said the agreement reached in 2015 with comfort women could not be considered an "exercise of public power" in this regard. Therefore, victims of comfort women are not satisfied with the requirement to submit a constitutional complaint to the consensus.
The reason the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not consider the agreement as an "exercise of public power" is that it is not a "treaty" but a "political declaration".
If the treaty was a treaty at the time, the consent of the comfort women would have the same effect as the national law, based on Article 6 of the Constitution, "the treaties concluded and promulgated by the Constitution and generally accepted international laws have the same effect as national law ". This proves that the Department of Foreign Affairs has exercised its power over the agreement on comfort women. This agreement, however, did not have the character of a treaty at the time.
The ministry refuted the fact that if the agreement on comfort women of 2015 is a treaty and that the exercise of public authority based on the treaty says that the victims were raped, he will admit that the agreement will have an effect similar to that of a treaty and a law.
However, the victims claimed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs exercised a "virtuous power" under the agreement. At the press conference of March 29 this year, he stressed that the consensus was the nature of "the National Action for the resolution of the disability of the armed forces of women and just Japanese resolutions- Korean ".
"These agreements and announcements (for the comfort women) have provided the Japanese government with a basis for baderting that, if an individual claims future personal claims from claimants, an agreement has already been reached," he said. . I can say that this corresponds to the actual act of public power that directly affects the constitution ".
Sang-hee Sang, a lawyer responsible for constitutional complaints against victims <프레시안>"The Foreign Ministry calls this agreement" diplomatic agreement "and" official promise ", and the Foreign Ministry has decided that the agreement was a binding issue." He said.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, "Questions and Answers on the Women's Comfort Zone Consultation", defines this agreement as "the official promise announced by the foreign ministers of both governments in the eyes of the people of the two countries. country and the international community at the joint press conference ".
The lawyer said: "If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs believes that the agreement is not binding and that there was no exercise of public power, it is a renegotiation order as soon as possible ", did he declare. "It's a promise to formally respect the women's comfort agreement, it's a contradiction to pretend that this is not an event."
[ad_2]
Source link
