National Human Rights Commission of Korea Annual Report 2015 1. ‌potential confusion due to duplication between the duty (meeting complainers, and Part II Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly on the risk of: conducting suo motu and on-site investigations) of the Commission personnel and that of 2. ‌even more confusion by the subjects of investigation (including complainer, inmate, or facility). J. ‌Expression of opinion on the opposition against the construction of facilities for the disabled The Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education and Korea Employment Agency for the Disabled worked together to build the Job Skill Training Center for Students with Developmental Disability inside Middle School A. However, the construction was being delayed due to the strong opposition of the local residents and parents of students in the school, who protested against: potential dangers from having people with developmental disability around, deterioration of living conditions, imbalance in regional development, and the fact that it failed to get approval from local residents. In fact, construction of specialized education schools and other facilities for the disabled in Seoul, Gyeonggi, and Incheon had to face similar gridlock. In response, the Commission expressed its opinion on December 29th to the Seoul Mayor and the local district mayor. It was to call for their action to raise public awareness on the disabled to prevent the recurrence of discrimination against the disabled, because opposition against the construction of facilities for the disabled is in fact a cruel refusal against people with disability, which clearly goes against the constitutional principle of equality. K. ‌Expression of opinion on the case of CCTV surveillance on the privacy of the professional baseball players of Lotte Giant In 2014, a complaint was made to clarify the suspicion that Lotte Giant, a professional baseball team, had been monitoring the entrance/exit of its players at the accomodations for an away game. This infringment led to a strong backlash from the players, who engaged in a collective action to protest the surveillance, gaining much attention from the public. Since the case arose from a baseball club operated by a private business, it was not subject to an investigation by the Commission pursuant to Article 30 of the NHRC Act. However, the Part II Major Activities of NHRCK | 33 Major Activities of NHRCK the habeas corpus officer from the MOJ; and