Commission's Major Activities National Human Rights Commission of Korea Annual Report 2016 Demonstration Act. The complainant had reported scheduled rallies in ten different locations, but the rallies were banned by the chief of police for the same reason. The Commission determined that the ban imposed by the chief of staff was an infringement on the right to assembly, as rallies can be banned only when they pose a clear, direct threat to public peace and order, and such a ban is a means of last resort that should be considered only when all other possibilities for allowing such rallies under certain conditions have all been exhausted. ● Investigator asking to see lawyer’s note to his client during interrogation During an interrogation of the accused, a policeman asked the lawyer to show him a note that had been handed to the accused. Based on a determination that the action constitutes a violation of the right to consult an attorney, the Commission recommended on 9 June that the chief of police provide consultation and training for the policemen under his supervision, in order that they fully guarantee an attorney’s right to assist clients and that they not ask attorneys to reveal any notes written for their clients. The Commission determined that the act of asking to examine such notes and memos could actually be considered coercion, that the memo falls under the accused’s right to privacy and, indeed, had nothing to do with the case, and that doing so could potentially violate the lawyer’s right to assist the client by exposing their defense strategies. ● Miranda warning during transport after arrest On 28 September, the Commission recommended that the chief of XX Police organize a training session for XXX, the policeman who had failed to read the suspect in custody his Miranda rights in a timely manner. It was found that when arresting the suspect, the policeman presented the arrest warrant but failed to read him the Miranda rights, and only gave the Miranda warning later after the suspect had phoned an acquaintance while being transported in a police car. The Commission concluded that the policeman’s reading of the Miranda rights was considerably removed from the time and place of arrest, and that under the given situation there was no reason for not reading the Miranda before the arrest. Thus, it was determined that the policeman had conducted an unlawful arrest by failing to fulfill the necessary conditions, which was an infringement on the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 12 of the Constitution. 50