guaranteed in the Constitution by failing to observe its duty to protect peaceful assemblies and demonstrations as specified in the Assembly and Demonstration Act. Obstructing the Revision of the Written Record of Statement We concluded that the act of interrupting the petitioner from adding more details to the already written record of statement was a violation of human rights and recommended on August 9 to provide on-the-job education to the said police officer on his duty to accept the request of the person making the statement to add or delete certain information. As a result of our investigation, it was found that the respective police officer took away the last page of the statement, to which the petitioner was adding testimony viewed to be favorable to himself/herself, and interrupted the petitioner from writing down additional testimony. We viewed that such an act by the respective police officer could pressure the petitioner and constrain the petitioner's free expression and exercise of the right to state opinions. Pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act and Criminal Investigation Regulations, fair investigations must be ensured and the right to freely state opinions that are favorable to those making statements, including suspects, must be protected by allowing them to read through the already written record of statement and to add testimony when they raise objections or make requests. Although the respective police officer argued that he informed the petitioner to write down additional statements on the investigation process confirmation document, this document, which is designed to provide the time and progress of the investigation, is deemed inappropriate as a record for additional testimony. In addition, the police officer failed to give the petitioner the opportunity to write down additional testimony. The police officer's assertion that the petitioner applied for a challenge against the investigator the following day and that the petitioner suddenly gave up on the opportunity to add testimony without special reason was also viewed to be unconvincing. As such, we concluded that it was a violation of the right to be treated equally throughout the criminal procedures as guaranteed in the Constitution for the respective police officer to obstruct the petitioner from adding favorable testimony to the written record of statement while reading through it. 90 Commission's Major Activities