Activist: state's travel restrictions violate fundamental rights

Court: state has duty to protect citizens' right to life

Activist Haecho speaks at a press conference outside the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on June 25, ahead of the first hearing in her lawsuit seeking to overturn the invalidation of her passport. [Yonhap]
Activist Haecho speaks at a press conference outside the Seoul Administrative Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on June 25, ahead of the first hearing in her lawsuit seeking to overturn the invalidation of her passport. [Yonhap]

An activist whose passport was invalidated after she attempted to enter the Gaza Strip — a designated travel-banned zone — has lost her lawsuit seeking to overturn the measure.

The 12th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court, presided over by Judge Kang Jae-won, ruled Thursday against Kim A-hyeon, known by her activist name Haecho, in her suit against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs demanding cancellation of the passport surrender order.

The court found that even though Kim's humanitarian activities were being restricted, the state had an obligation to protect her life.

"It was clearly foreseeable that Kim would attempt to sail to Gaza in the near future," the court said, adding that "the risk of serious harm to her life and body was very high given Israeli airstrikes and the broader Middle East war."

The court further found that "in such circumstances, there is a recognized need to act urgently for the sake of public safety or welfare."

In its first-instance ruling, the court said the public interest in protecting life and physical safety, as well as national security, outweighed any restriction on Kim's freedom of movement and humanitarian activities. It added that the passport surrender order "was in effect the only measure the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could take to restrict Kim's access to Gaza after she had already left the country."

"Kim's humanitarian convictions and freedom of action must be respected," the court said, and went on to say that "the right to life is the highest constitutional value, and the state must take its protective duty especially seriously."

The court also said it could not place state institutions "in a constitutional dilemma between fulfilling their duty to protect life and physical safety, and allowing individuals to exercise their freedom of movement while accepting personal risk."

Kim had boarded a humanitarian flotilla last October bound for Gaza, a travel-banned zone, when Israeli forces seized the vessel. She was held in a local prison and released after two days. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs ordered her to surrender her passport, but Kim left the country again before receiving the notice, causing her passport to be invalidated — a consequence under the Passport Act for failing to comply with a surrender order.

Kim then boarded another relief vessel headed for Gaza and was again seized by Israeli forces. After being released and returning to South Korea, she sought to reapply for a passport, but the ministry refused. The ministry's position is that it can consider reissuing a passport only if Kim pledges not to attempt another visit to Gaza.

Throughout the trial, Kim's legal team argued that the ministry had issued the order without prior notice and without stating specific grounds, despite the absence of any urgent circumstances, and that the measure was therefore unlawful.

They also said the action was aimed at supporting Palestinian civilians amid what they described as a genocide and at alerting the international community, and that the ministry's order had violated Kim's fundamental rights, including freedom of movement.

The ministry, for its part, said it was not questioning Kim's motives, but that Gaza was a situation where safety could not be guaranteed due to ongoing retaliatory strikes and other dangers, and that the state was obligated to take every possible measure to protect her.

Kim had also filed a constitutional complaint arguing that the relevant provision of the Passport Act was unconstitutional, but the Constitutional Court dismissed it at the preliminary review stage on July 19.


notstrong@heraldcorp.com