The new party, Freedom and Innovation, filed a complaint with the UN on the 2nd, citing the unfairness of President Yoon Suk-yeol's trial. [Composite image] 

The new party Freedom and Innovation (led by former Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn) recently announced that it had filed a complaint with the UN Human Rights Council's Special Rapporteur against Judge Baek Dae-hyun, presiding judge of the Criminal Division 35 of the Seoul Central District Court, who is presiding over President Yoon Suk-yeol's criminal trial. 

Freedom and Innovation claimed that Judge Baek "severely infringes upon President Yoon's right to defense and right to a fair trial" and requested an immediate investigation by the UN and an official expression of concern to the South Korean government. 

This complaint comes amidst President Yoon's trial, where he is charged with rebellion and other offenses, following his declaration of emergency martial law on December 3, 2024, under the pretext of "crushing pro-China leftist forces and election rigging cartels." 

Judge Baek is presiding over the trial related to President Yoon's alleged obstruction of justice by preventing investigators from the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials from entering the presidential office at the time of the martial law declaration. 

Freedom and Innovation pointed out that "Judge Baek's trial proceedings constitute a serious act that undermines the universal values of human rights shared by the international community," and strongly urged for wise and swift action from the UN Human Rights Council's Special Rapporteur, calling it "a grave challenge to the international norms of the rule of law and human rights."

The grounds presented by Freedom and Innovation in their complaint, alleging that Judge Baek's trial proceedings undermine the independence and fairness of the judiciary, are as follows: 

Arbitrary Deadlines and Substantive Infringement of the Right to Defense

Judge Baek Dae-hyun unilaterally set the closing of arguments and sentencing dates without any prior consultation with the defense counsel. Specifically, when the special prosecutor suddenly withdrew a vast amount of evidence they had requested, the court, as if it had been waiting, forcibly closed the arguments. This constitutes a "surprise closure of trial" that fundamentally collapses the defense plan of the accused, who was preparing for cross-examination and rebuttal evidence to impeach the prosecution's evidence, thereby depriving the accused of the minimal defense time (Right to Defense) that should be guaranteed. Such arbitrary deadline setting is an act that severely undermines the "principle of equality of arms," a core principle of a fair trial.

Abandonment of the Duty to Discover Substantive Truth and Violation of Due Process

The defense counsel applied to call key figures such as former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min and former Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Choo Kyung-ho, who could testify about the National Security Council meetings at the time of the martial law declaration to clarify its background and legality. However, Judge Baek Dae-hyun refused to accept these key witnesses or attempted to conclude the trial based solely on the fact that some witnesses were absent, abandoning their examination. This is an act of intentionally disregarding the judiciary's fundamental duty to discover the substantive truth of the case in order to conclude the trial by the physical deadline of the defendant's detention period. Depriving the defendant of the opportunity to examine essential witnesses in this manner is a violation of the core of Due Process.

Lack of Judicial Impartiality and Violation of the Presumption of Innocence

The charges in this trial (obstruction of justice, etc.) are subordinate in nature, with their illegality determined by whether the premise of "rebellion" is established. In other words, if the charge of rebellion is not established, the President's exercise of command and supervision under martial law cannot be considered legitimate execution of duty. Despite this, Judge Baek Dae-hyun has declared that there is no need to wait for the judgment of other courts deliberating on the establishment of rebellion and is rushing to a guilty verdict on the subordinate charges. This constitutes proceeding with the trial based on a prejudgment of guilt, disregarding the logical sequence of the case, and clearly violates the judge's duty of impartiality and the "presumption of innocence."

Undermining the Rule of Law and Threatening Democratic Values

The defense counsel is presenting significant legal arguments that the declaration of martial law constitutes "act of state," a highly political act that is difficult to subject to judicial review, and that resisting an illegal warrant execution could be considered "justifiable self-defense." However, Judge Baek avoids in-depth deliberation on these constitutional and legal issues and limits the case solely to the criminal framework of "obstruction of public officials' duty." Handling such a critical constitutional matter concerning a former head of state in such a biased manner harms South Korea's legal stability and constitutes an act of undermining democracy by self-infringing the "Rule of Law," the foundation of democracy.

The English version of the complaint filed by the new party Freedom and Innovation with the UN Human Rights Council. Reporter Heo Gyeom