The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) again recommended revising Article 39 of the Police Investigation Rules, which defines who drafts suspect interrogation records, judging that it runs counter to the intent of Article 197 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a higher law that distinguishes the investigative powers of judicial police officers and judicial police staff.
According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the 21st, the complainant, a fraud suspect, was interrogated by a constable in an open interview room at a police station and filed a complaint, saying the complainant felt insulted after hearing a police officer who appeared to be the Head of Team make inappropriate remarks related to the complainant's alleged crime.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) dismissed the complaint itself. It said there was no situation where personal information would be leaked, and it viewed that the constable's remarks at the time did not appear likely to cause insult.
However, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) determined during the review that it violated due process for a judicial police staff member to independently exercise the authority of a judicial police officer and draft suspect interrogation records.
Article 197 of the Criminal Procedure Act defines the roles of judicial police officers—such as senior superintendent general, senior superintendent, superintendent, inspector, and lieutenant—and judicial police staff—such as sergeant, corporal, and constable. When a judicial police officer determines there is suspicion of a crime and investigates the suspect, the facts, and the evidence, judicial police staff are to assist the investigation.
In contrast, Article 39 of the Police Investigation Rules includes provisions that judicial police staff draft suspect interrogation records according to prescribed forms.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) said, "Given that Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that 'a judicial police officer shall have a judicial police staff member participate when interrogating a suspect,' the主体 of suspect interrogation is the judicial police officer, and judicial police staff correspond to assistants."
It went on, "However, in this case, the respondent (constable), as judicial police staff, independently interrogated the suspect and drafted the record," adding, "If judicial police staff independently exercise the authority of a judicial police officer and draft suspect interrogation records, those records may constitute documents prepared in violation of due process by a person without authority and could pose a risk of human rights violations."
In 2024, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also expressed the view that it is advisable to revise the rules, noting that it is difficult to avoid criticism that it is an unauthorized act for judicial police staff, who are merely investigative assistants, to independently draft suspect interrogation records, and that there is not sufficient legal basis. However, as nothing changed afterward, it again recommended a revision this time.