9. From the time the ARPDA has come into effect until 31 December 2017, the order for
corrections issued by the Minister of Justice were totaling 2 cases (1 case of ex officio and 1
case based on request). In relation to this, Representative So Ha Yun, as the primary bill
sponsor, has called for an amendment of the Act on 12 December 2017 as he deemed that the
requirement for the issuance of order for correction is excessively restrictive to combat and
take tangible effect on discrimination against disabled persons. This bill seeks to repeal a part
of the Act which states “damage thereof is deemed to be considerable and has significant
effect on public interest” to lower the requirement for the order for correction.
10. The Commission also notes that the CRPD has made recommendation to raise
awareness among judges on the need to effectively implement the ARPDA and the injunctive
power bestowed upon them (Article 48 of the ARPDA) in its concluding observations.
List of possible inquiries for consideration
11. Specify the number of litigation aid delivered in relation to violation of the ARPDA,
the amount of litigation cost subsidy granted to the victims of disability discrimination, and
the government’s on-going efforts and plans to exempt and reduce the cost of lawsuit for
victims of disability discrimination.
12. With note on the government’s analysis, specify whether the low number of the order
for correction issued by the Minister of Justice, whose authority is stipulated in the ARPDA
(Article 43), is caused by its excessively restrictive requirement, or the lack of willingness on
the part of Ministry of Justice. In addition, specify the government’s plans, including a
measure which grants the NHRC the right to apply for order for correction, to encourage the
Minister of Justice’s active engagement for the order for correction.
13. Specify the number of lawsuits filed due to the violation of the ARPDA and the
statistical summary of its result (number of cases lost and won), the details of training
curriculum to raise awareness among judges on the ARPDA, the number and proportion of
judges who have participated in the training, the number of facilitated training sessions, and
the positive effect of training on awareness-raising among judges on the ARPDA.
5