In an interview with Cheonji Ilbo, a South Korean daily newspaper founded in September 2009 that covers general news, politics, culture, and religion, five international experts specialising in human rights and religious freedom who recently visited Korea highlighted a shared message for Korean society: fundamental rights must apply universally. They stressed that freedom of religion, expression and association, along with human dignity and due process, should be protected equally for all groups, including those that may be socially controversial or unpopular.

The experts— Hans Noot, Associate Director, Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF); Márk Nemes, Deputy Director of the Center for New Religions Research (CESNUR); Thierry Valle, President, Coalition for Freedom of Conscience (CAP LC); Michael Langhans, Executive Director of the Forum for Religious Freedom in Europe (FOREF) Germany; and Massimo Introvigne, President of the The Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR)—shared their perspectives on religious freedom in Korea and the treatment of minority religions before and after a press conference held at the Korea Press Center in Seoul on 7th August.

One of the main issues raised during the experts’ visit was the detention of ManHee Lee, chairman of Shincheonji Church of Jesus. The experts made clear that they were not seeking to determine whether he was guilty or innocent of the charges against him. Instead, they questioned whether the pretrial detention of a 95-year-old defendant was genuinely necessary and whether the same objectives could be achieved through less restrictive measures.

Hans Noot, who personally visited Chairman Lee at the detention facility, said that determining guilt is the responsibility of the judiciary, but assessing whether detention is necessary is a separate issue. He suggested that alternatives such as bail or house arrest could be considered where appropriate.

Thierry Valle likewise identified human dignity as a key consideration. He argued that authorities should carefully examine whether detention is necessary for defendants who are protected by the presumption of innocence, or whether their release on bail or under appropriate supervision could achieve the same objectives. He also noted that international human rights mechanisms, including the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), could potentially be considered where appropriate.

Michael Langhans focused on both the proportionality of detention for elderly defendants and their right to adequately prepare a defence. He questioned whether a defendant can sufficiently prepare for trial while detained under circumstances involving restrictions on visitation and access to necessary resources.

Massimo Introvigne similarly argued that the detention of elderly, non-violent defendants warrants particularly careful scrutiny. He referred to the Mandela Rules and relevant European standards as frameworks that recognise the importance of considering the circumstances and dignity of detainees.

The experts also highlighted concerns about how minority religions are portrayed by the media and perceived by society.

Thierry Valle emphasised the importance of responsible fact-checking, particularly at a time when unverified claims and provocative images can spread rapidly through social media. He acknowledged that criticism and public debate are protected forms of expression, but stressed that religious groups should not be condemned or stigmatised solely on the basis of rumours or unverified allegations.

Márk Nemes described his visit to Korea as a “revealing” experience, explaining that personally visiting relevant locations and meeting members allowed him to gain perspectives that could not be obtained from externally formed perceptions alone.

He identified several factors that may contribute to inadequate coverage of minority religions, including media revenue models, the public demand for sensational content, and the role of government and public institutions.

Nemes argued that the media should not contribute to social division or conflict and that governments have a responsibility to protect socially marginalised communities from aggressive or discriminatory behaviour. He also said he intends to continue researching new religious movements, including Shincheonji, drawing on relevant reports, data and findings from his visit to Korea.

Massimo Introvigne discussed the situation in Korea through what he calls the “Rome Model,” which describes how restrictions on religious freedom can develop in stages.

According to this framework, the process may begin with intolerance, in which distorted or negative perceptions of a particular group become widespread. This can progress to discrimination, including discriminatory laws or administrative measures, and potentially develop into persecution, including hate crimes or physical violence.

While acknowledging that South Korea is a democratic country, Introvigne noted that democratic systems are not automatically immune from intolerance or discrimination against minority religions.

He cautioned that when a particular religious group is consistently described using negative labels such as “heresy” or “cult,” while only critical perspectives are presented, it can become difficult for society to develop a balanced understanding of that group.

The five experts also stressed that their press conference should not be regarded as a one-time event.

Hans Noot expressed concern that freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association are interconnected rights. He warned that weakening one of these freedoms could have broader consequences for other fundamental rights.

Michael Langhans described the press conference as a “first step” and said that related discussions would continue in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

Ultimately, the experts raised a fundamental question: Are the same standards of human rights being applied to minority groups, particularly those at the centre of public controversy, as are applied to the majority?

Regardless of religious doctrine, public opinion or social controversy surrounding a particular group, they emphasised that freedom of religion, expression and association, as well as due process and human dignity, should be protected equally for everyone.