A/HRC/32/36/Add.5 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association on his mission to the Republic of Korea: comments by the State * Introduction 1. The Republic of Korea welcomes the visit of the UN Special Rapporteur (SR) on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and is pleased to have had a constructive dialogue with the SR during his visit. 2. The Government of the Republic of Korea welcomes the high appreciation of the SR on the proud history of Korea’s democratization and its vibrant civil society, and is pleased to note his recognition of relevant laws and good practices. The Government takes note of his recommendations to promote and protect the freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and will give due consideration to them. 3. We thank the SR for the opportunity to comment on his report on the situation of the freedom of peaceful assembly and association in the Republic of Korea, and would like to comment as follows. Freedom of peaceful assembly Notification and peaceful assembly 4. Para 21: It is generally accepted to use the Constitution and national laws as the determinant for judging the lawfulness of an assembly based on the principle of legal clarity, since national laws specify prohibited actions and the following sanctions in a clearer manner than international human rights laws. 5. Para 23: The Government does not deem an assembly unlawful because of violent actions by a few. An assembly is dispersed in due process when there is significant danger to public order, for instance, when it turns collectively violent. Management of assemblies 6. Para 33: The Korean National Police Agency (KNPA) confirmed that it never used water cannons against peaceful and legal assemblies. They were only used to block or disperse illegal and violent demonstrators who, for instance, attempted to break the police line by binding police vehicles with ropes or to damage police vehicles. 7. Para 34: The Constitutional Court dismissed the case on the use of water cannons mentioned by the SR because it did not require a constitutional review; it belonged to the jurisdiction of an ordinary court, as it did not concern a violation of the Constitution but the compliance of the use of water cannons with the requirements of the applicable laws. With the dismissal, the Constitutional Court gave its opinion on the case: the infringement on basic rights by using water cannons would not be repeated since relevant laws clearly prescribe the legal grounds of, limitations on, requirements for, and methods of their use, * 2 Reproduced as received.