Key NHRCK Activities on the no-departure list, the petitioner was stopped from taking a family trip overseas when he and his family were checking-in at the airport. The petitionees claimed that they had applied for a departure ban on the petitioner, who was a testifier in the case, and on the suspect and some other key testifiers in accordance with Article 4 (2) of the Immigration Control Act, and also requested that the petitioner not be notified of the extended ban for the reason that, given the seriousness of the case, there was considerable risk that those involved in the case would avoid investigation by leaving the country and, should they become aware that they were put on the no-departure list, they would synchronize their statements or destroy/hide evidence to impede investigation. An investigation by the Commission showed that, based on the occupation of the petitioner, his by the prosecution, there was no reasonable grounds to believe that there was a considerable risk Part 2 family relations, immigration records, departure ban request form, and other documents submitted of the petitioner taking flight abroad; it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was avoiding or and undergone long hours of investigation; and while no additional investigations had been planned for, the prosecution had applied for the departure ban to be extended without any real considerations of the likelihood of escape but only because the petitioner was ‘under investigation on a case of violation of the Public Official Election Act.’ In addition, the immigration-related law provides that a departure ban request form be accompanied with documentation justifying the reasons why such a ban is necessary. However, the prosecutor’s office in question only submitted a request form, but without any supporting documentation. The Ministry of Justice had also issued the ban based on the departure ban request form, without asking for verification or supporting documentation. Meanwhile, with respect to the no-notification of departure bans, the Commission concluded that notification of departure bans would not necessarily lead to serious destruction of evidence, and that because most of those put on the departure ban were police officers, there was no real risk of flight. The Commission also came to the decision stated above, considering that current departure ban evaluation procedures fail to function in a way that prevents abuse of the departure bans, and there is a need to improve the procedures to ensure more effective assessment. 89 Key NHRCK Activities not complying with investigation as he had presented himself to the Public Prosecutors’ Office