German International Law Professor: “Consider Alternatives to Detention

for 95-Year-Old Man Hee Lee, Given His Advanced Age”

“Pretrial detention of a 95-year-old defendant should be subject to exceptionally strict justification, and less restrictive alternatives, such as bail, house arrest, or electronic monitoring, should be considered first.”

There has been growing controversy surrounding the detention of a 95-year-old elderly defendant, which has become a hotly debated issue in recent days. The presumption of innocence should, of course, be upheld until a verdict is reached. However, heated debate continues over whether it is truly necessary to deprive an individual of their liberty before the trial has even concluded. 

In this regard, I would like to discuss an interview with Professor Ciarán Burke, a German scholar of international law. He participated in a written interview conducted by HWPL (Heavenly Culture, World Peace, Restoration of Light), an international peace organization. The interview addressed the general principles of international human rights law. This is particularly relevant because, in cases that are still pending trial, statements by public officials declaring a defendant guilty can undermine the principle of the presumption of innocence. Professor Burke also noted that the European Court of Human Rights has previously found such conduct to constitute a violation of human rights.

◆ No one is guilty until the trial is over.

Professor Burke emphasized that the principle of the presumption of innocence does not apply solely to the court’s judicial proceedings, but is a fundamental principle that must be observed by all public officials exercising state power.

He emphasized that the principle of the presumption of innocence applies not only to the court’s judicial proceedings but is also a fundamental principle that must be observed by all public officials exercising state power. He said, “Not every statement made by a public official automatically constitutes a violation of international human rights law. However, the speaker’s position, the manner in which the statement is expressed, and the stage of the proceedings must all be taken into consideration. Statements that fail to clearly distinguish between allegations and established facts and that characterize a defendant as a criminal before a verdict is reached may violate the principle of the presumption of innocence.”

He went on to explain that in a landmark case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), “the Court found that public statements by a senior government official categorically declaring a suspect to be guilty violated the principle of the presumption of innocence. This case demonstrates that the more authority a person holds within the state, the more careful they must be in choosing their words.”

He also said, “When government statements, political commentary, and media reports converge, there is a risk that a social verdict of guilt may be formed before the court reaches its final judgment. Public officials should consistently use terms such as ‘allegation’ and make it clear that the final determination rests with the court. Generalized statements that associate an entire religious community with criminality may also raise separate human rights concerns in terms of freedom of religion, the right to equality, and the principle of non-discrimination.”

Professor Burke emphasized that, in order to ensure a fair trial, the defendant’s right to a defense must be guaranteed. This principle means that the defendant must be able to present their case under conditions that do not place them at a substantial disadvantage compared with the opposing party.

The defendant must be able to clearly understand the charges against them and the facts of the case, and must have meaningful access to the evidence held by the prosecution as well as materials that may support their defense. They must also be able to receive adequate assistance from legal counsel.

He said, “In the case of elderly defendants who are being detained, the state must take active measures to ensure that their access to legal counsel and participation in the trial are not effectively restricted. They must be provided with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, examine witnesses, and present evidence of their own.”

◆ Is detention absolutely necessary?

Regarding the decision to detain and investigate the 95-year-old defendant, we must ask the question: Is detention really necessary?

Professor Burke prefaced his remarks by stating, “Detention does not automatically become unlawful simply because a person is elderly, and it is not possible to determine the legality of detention in a specific case without reviewing the case records, medical information, and other relevant materials.”

He also said, “For an elderly defendant whose identity is clearly established and who has cooperated with the investigation, continuing to detain them requires highly compelling and specific grounds. The state must demonstrate that the risk cannot be adequately addressed through less restrictive measures than detention.”

He emphasized, “Pretrial detention should be an exceptional measure, and it is a fundamental principle of international human rights law that less restrictive alternatives, such as bail, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and no-contact orders, should be considered first. Courts should not simply repeat abstract grounds for detention; they must continually assess the defendant’s health, age, and ability to exercise their right to a defense.”

He went on to say, “It cannot be categorically stated that pretrial detention of a 95-year-old defendant is, in itself, a violation of international human rights law. However, if the authorities cannot demonstrate with concrete evidence that a serious risk still exists and that it cannot be adequately addressed through alternative measures, continued detention may be difficult to reconcile with the right to liberty, the principle of the presumption of innocence, and international standards that require pretrial detention to remain an exceptional measure.”

Everyone facing trial should be guaranteed a fair procedure and should not be presumed guilty before a final verdict is reached. The fundamental principles applied under the law should be the same for everyone. When considering the issue of pretrial detention involving a 95-year-old elderly defendant, much of the debate has centered on whether people should support or oppose a particular individual or a particular religion. I hope this debate will serve as an opportunity for our society to reflect on the standards of the rule of law and human rights that we uphold. 

The rule of law should not be swayed by a person’s social status or influence. It should apply equally to everyone. Whatever the outcome of the trial may be, I hope that the process leading to that outcome will, at the very least, be fair.

Reference : https://vo.la/ZCxuSGk 

Could the law not have shown a little more compassion for an elderly defendant?

As I write this, I would like to speak about Mr. Man Hee Lee, Chairman of HWPL (Heavenly Culture, World Peace, Restoration of Light), a peace advocate. When I heard the recent news of his detention, I could not take it lightly. My intention is not to defend any particular religion or to judge every aspect of his work. However, it is a fact that, as a peace activist, he has traveled to many countries around the world, promoting peace and contributing to his nation's international standing. Seeing someone who has devoted himself to international peace efforts being detained before his trial has even begun gave me much to think about, even as an ordinary citizen with no legal expertise. 

Chairman Lee was born in 1931 and is 95 years old this year. He is also a Korean War veteran who is officially recognized for his military service. I believe one of the reasons he has devoted himself so passionately to peace activities is that, having experienced the horrors of war firsthand, he understands better than most the value of peace. During the investigation, multiple search and seizure operations were carried out, and media reports indicated that he cooperated with the authorities on each occasion, providing extensive materials that allowed investigators to secure a substantial amount of evidence. Of course, the court may have had sufficient grounds that are not known to the general public. Even so, I cannot help but wonder whether greater consideration could have been given to his advanced age and health condition.

Another aspect that gave me pause was the direction the investigation has taken. It reportedly began with allegations of coercing people to join a particular political party, a potential violation of the Political Parties Act. However, the scope of the investigation has since expanded to include allegations such as embezzlement, tax evasion, and violations of the Political Funds Act. I have no doubt that the investigative authorities have their own legal grounds and procedures for broadening the investigation. Even so, I believe that providing the public with a clearer and more transparent explanation of the reasons behind this expansion would help reduce unnecessary misunderstandings and strengthen public trust. 

At the same time, I cannot help but raise the issue of fairness when looking at another religious case that received media attention around the same period. In that case, reports indicated that members of the organization's staff were found to have attempted to destroy evidence and were subsequently indicted without detention. Yet the principal figure in the case was not prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired on some allegations and there was deemed to be insufficient evidence on others. Of course, it would be inappropriate to draw a simple comparison between these two cases, as each involves different facts and legal issues. Nevertheless, it is only natural that members of the public will compare them. When people see different outcomes, they naturally want to understand why. If the results of two high-profile cases appear inconsistent, I believe the investigative authorities should provide a clearer and more accessible explanation of the reasons behind those differences. Such transparency would help strengthen public confidence in the fairness of the justice system. 

Whenever the standards for exercising authority appear to differ from one person to another, public trust in the system inevitably begins to erode. As an ordinary citizen with no legal expertise, my hopes are not complicated. I simply believe that greater compassion should be shown toward those who are elderly and in poor health, and that the principle of the presumption of innocence should be respected until a court reaches its final verdict. For these reasons, I view the detention of peace advocate, HWPL Chairman Man Hee Lee, as a matter of considerable significance. I also believe that the reasons for the scope of an investigation and any differences in legal decisions should be explained in a clear and transparent manner that the public can readily understand.

It is deeply regrettable to see someone who has promoted peace on the global stage, enhanced his country's international standing through those efforts, and is also a decorated Korean War veteran being subjected to detention in this manner. I sincerely hope that he will be given the opportunity to defend himself while remaining at liberty, allowing the truth to be established through a fair and orderly judicial process. Above all, I hope that the final judgment will be one that is fair, impartial, and capable of earning the trust and understanding of the public.

Reference : https://vo.la/cF5KZKV 

HWPL and IPYG Join Hands with Government and Religious Leaders

to Conduct Drug Prevention and Environmental Cleanup Campaigns

The Zambia branch of the international peace NGO Heavenly Culture, World Peace, Restoration of Light (HWPL), the International Peace Youth Group (IPYG) and the Youth Empowerment Peace Workshop (YEPW), conducted a campaign under the theme "Clean Up, Crime Down" in the Mandevu area of Lusaka, Zambia, to mark the United Nations (UN)-designated International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking. The campaign aimed to promote drug prevention and encourage the creation of a cleaner, healthier environment.

The campaign was organized to mark the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, with the goal of raising awareness among young people about the dangers of drug abuse while encouraging them to help improve their local environment. The initiative was made even more meaningful through the participation of Zambian government agencies, health and environmental organizations, religious leaders, and community representatives. It was particularly noteworthy for bringing together stakeholders from diverse sectors to work toward a shared goal.

During the event, participants attended a drug prevention education session that highlighted how drug abuse can have serious consequences not only for an individual's health but also for their education, relationships, and future. Betty Phiri, Coordinator of the International Peace Youth Group (IPYG), said, "Drug prevention is a responsible choice that protects young people's health, education, relationships, and future. Choosing to say no to drugs and helping friends make the right decisions are small actions that can become meaningful acts of peace."

Following the educational session, participants took part in an environmental cleanup campaign along the route from Ngombe Clinic to New Ngombe Market. The Lusaka City Council and local organizations provided garbage collection trucks and cleaning equipment, while participants worked alongside community residents to collect litter and help create cleaner streets.

Nkisu Katemangwe, a Lusaka City Youth Councillor who participated in the volunteer activity, said, "Working alongside volunteers who are dedicated to serving the community has been a great source of inspiration for me. I will continue to take greater responsibility in protecting our local environment and actively contribute to future community cleanup efforts."

In particular, the campaign served as an excellent example of how voluntary youth participation and collaboration among multiple organizations can create a positive impact, and it was featured by major local media outlets. The HWPL Zambia Branch plans to continue its monthly "Clean Up, Crime Down" campaign and gradually expand the initiative throughout Lusaka. Although the word "peace" may sometimes seem abstract, healthy lifestyles, a clean environment, and small acts of consideration for one another are the first steps toward building a more peaceful society.

Reference : https://vo.la/KWq1Trk