private vocational high school attended by “K.” These letters sought clarifications regarding the adherence to Article 56, Paragraph 1 of the Senior High School Education Act to international human rights covenants, the nature of the fees levied by the school, the justification and necessity for imposing different fees on nationals and foreigners, as well as the support and remedies available to “K.” ii. Beginning the Investigation 1. After receiving responses from the Ministry of Education on January 17th, 2024 (Document No. 1130003912), and from the private vocational high school attended by “K” on January 10th, 2024 (Document No. 11370012600), the Commission found that the Ministry of Education cited reasons such as national economic and fiscal conditions and the effective utilization of educational resources. However, it did not adequately explain the reasonableness or necessity of the differential treatment, nor did it provide supporting evidence. As a result, during a Human Rights Petition and Complaint Review Group meeting on February 6th, 2024, and the 50th session of the 1st Committee on February 27th, 2024, the Commission decided to initiate a formal investigation. 2. On April 11th, 2024, the commission presented an investigation plan for the complaint case titled “Discriminatory Tuition Subsidy Policy for Permanent Residents and Their Children in Senior High School and Above.” C. Investigation Scope The Commission consulted with scholars, experts, and NGO representatives to clarify the investigation's scope and direction. In this case, the complainant is a foreign national, excluding those from China, Hong Kong, and Macau. Article 25 of the Immigration Act stipulates that “An alien, who has legally and continuously resided in the State for consecutive five (5) years and for one hundred and 6