Why Are International Human Rights Organizations Speaking Out About Shincheonji and Lee Man-hee in South Korea?

- A personal reflection on religious freedom, human rights, and the detention of Lee Man-hee, the 95-year-old chairman of Shincheonji -

When people outside South Korea hear the name Shincheonji, they may already have some impression of the group.

Some may know Shincheonji as a controversial religious organization in South Korea.

Others may have first heard of Shincheonji through international coverage of controversies surrounding the group during the COVID-19 pandemic or of religious freedom issues in South Korea.

Recently, though, I came across the name Shincheonji again for a different reason.

Several international human rights and religious freedom organizations traveled to Seoul to publicly raise concerns about the detention of Lee Man-hee, the 95-year-old chairman of Shincheonji.

 

That made me wonder:

Why are international human rights organizations paying attention to this case?

More importantly, it raised another question.

Why has this case come to raise questions not only about religious freedom, but also about human rights, due process, and proportionality?

 

There is one thing I want to make clear from the outset.

I am not writing this article to determine whether the allegations against Lee Man-hee are true.

I believe that is a matter for the courts to determine through the judicial process.

What caught my attention was something slightly different.

Even when someone is accused of a crime, shouldn’t their basic human rights remain fully protected?

  

What Happened to Lee Man-hee, Chairman of Shincheonji?

 

According to reports, Lee Man-hee was detained on June 24, 2026, in connection with allegations involving South Korea’s Political Parties Act.

Prosecutors allege that around 50,000 Shincheonji members were mobilized to join the People Power Party between 2021 and 2024 in an effort to influence party primaries and other political contests.

Lee Man-hee and Shincheonji have denied the allegations.

He was formally indicted on June 30 while still in detention.

 

There is an important distinction to make here.

Being accused of something and being found guilty are two very different things.

Whether the alleged political activity actually violated South Korean law will ultimately be determined through the judicial process.

Even though I am writing this from a human rights perspective, I don’t think it is my place to reach a conclusion about the case before the court does.

What concerned me more was the question of whether pretrial detention was truly necessary.

 

That question felt especially important given that Lee Man-hee is 95 years old.

Of course, being elderly does not mean that someone should be exempt from legal accountability.

At the same time, when deciding whether continued detention is necessary, shouldn’t factors such as age, health, the risk of flight, the risk of evidence tampering or destruction, and the availability of less restrictive alternatives also be considered?

This is where I found the international response particularly noteworthy.

 

Why Did International Human Rights Organizations Come to Seoul?

 

On August 7, several international human rights organizations and scholars gathered at the Seoul Foreign Correspondents' Club to discuss freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression in South Korea.

The participants included representatives from Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF), CAP Liberté de Conscience, FOREF, CESNUR, and Bitter Winter.

Their concerns went beyond the fact that Lee Man-hee belongs to Shincheonji.

They were raising a broader question about whether legal and administrative measures involving religious minorities are carried out in a neutral and proportionate manner consistent with human rights principles.

They also expressed concerns about due process and the treatment of elderly religious leaders in detention.

After the press conference, participants also signed a letter calling for Lee Man-hee to be released from pretrial detention.

 

Reading about this made me stop and think.

If this were simply a dispute between one religious group in South Korea and the government, would international human rights experts have traveled all the way to Seoul?

I think they were looking at a broader issue that went beyond one individual case.

How should a democratic society protect the human rights of someone who belongs to a controversial or unpopular religious group?

  

 

Shouldn’t Religious Freedom Be Protected Regardless of Popularity?

 

This was the part I thought about the most.

South Korea is a democratic country whose constitution protects freedom of religion.

South Korea is also a party to major international human rights treaties.

The Republic of Korea acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1990 and the Convention against Torture (CAT) in 1995.

So when we talk about religious freedom in South Korea, I don’t think we are simply talking about a provision in the constitution.

It is also a matter connected to broader international human rights standards.

 

That led me to ask:

Does religious freedom only feel important when it involves a religion we like or agree with?

I don't think it should work that way. 

To me, human rights have real meaning when they also protect people we disagree with.

That includes religious minorities. 

That also includes groups that may be controversial or unpopular.

And I believe the same principle should apply to people who are being investigated or accused of a crime. 

Protecting someone’s basic rights does not mean declaring that person innocent.

Those are clearly two different things.

  

Was Pretrial Detention Really Necessary?

 

Of all the issues raised by the international experts, this was one of the questions that stood out to me the most.

Dr. Massimo Introvigne, managing director of CESNUR and editor-in-chief of Bitter Winter, raised concerns about Lee Man-hee’s detention and referred to international standards, including the UN Mandela Rules.

The Mandela Rules provide international standards for the treatment of prisoners.

Of course, the rules do not say that every elderly defendant must automatically be released.

Instead, they emphasize humane treatment, dignity, and appropriate medical care for people in detention.

UN materials concerning older prisoners also emphasize the importance of age-sensitive approaches and appropriate medical care.

So I don’t think this issue should simply be reduced to “He is 95, so he should be released.”

 

I think a more important question is:

“Is there a less restrictive alternative that could ensure a 95-year-old defendant appears for trial and does not interfere with the investigation, without keeping him in detention?”

If such alternatives exist, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask why they were not considered.

I don't see that as asking for special treatment.

I see it as a question of whether the detention is proportionate.

 

 

Human Rights Should Not Depend on Popularity

 

The more I think about human rights, the more I realize how important this principle is.

Human rights are not rewards given only to people with good reputations.

They are rights that belong to people simply because they are human.

That is why cases involving controversial religious groups can actually give us an important opportunity to think about what democracy really means.

It is not difficult to say that we should protect the rights of people we like.

It becomes much harder when we disagree with their views or religious beliefs.

Maybe that is exactly when the principle of human rights matters most.

 

As someone living in Korea who is interested in both Korean culture and human rights, this case gave me a lot to think about.

South Korea is now attracting worldwide attention for K-pop, K-dramas, food, fashion, technology, and many other aspects of Korean culture.

I love that side of Korea too.

But I don't think Korea's image in the world is shaped by K-culture alone.

The way we treat people who are unpopular or controversial, older people, and religious minorities also says something important about what kind of country South Korea is.

 

 

 

Should We Also Consider Lee Man-hee’s Peacebuilding Activities?

 

There is another part of Lee Man-hee's background that I think is worth looking at carefully.

Lee Man-hee is associated with HWPL, which has conducted peace education programs, promoted interfaith dialogue, and carried out international peace initiatives.

Its activities include peace education programs and interfaith dialogue through WARP Offices.

It has also been involved in partnerships with educational institutions and governments in different countries. 

Of course, that does not mean these activities should determine the outcome of a criminal case. 

Those are clearly separate issues.

 

However, when discussing the humane treatment of an elderly religious leader, I think it can also be meaningful to consider the person’s broader background and past activities rather than viewing them solely through the lens of the current allegations.

Of course, past peacebuilding activities do not establish innocence with respect to the current allegations.

But they can still be part of the broader context for understanding that person.

Especially when the discussion is about humane treatment, I think that broader context is worth considering.

 

 

I Am Not Saying We Should Ignore the Allegations

 

This is probably the point I most want to emphasize.

If there are allegations of illegal political activity, I believe they should be investigated and the facts should be determined through that process.

If someone is found to have violated the law, they should be held accountable in accordance with the law.

At the same time, I believe the basic rights of someone who has not yet been found guilty should also be protected.

Neither serious allegations nor membership in a controversial religious group should, by themselves, deprive someone of their basic human rights.

The court should make its decision based on the evidence.

The public should be able to ask questions about the process.

The media should report carefully and focus on verified facts.

And the government should uphold the principles of neutrality and due process expected in a democratic society.

For me, this is not about blindly supporting Shincheonji.

Ultimately, it is about treating people fairly.

 

 

What I Took Away from the Seoul Press Conference

 

Before looking into this case, I think I also tended to see religious freedom mainly as a right guaranteed by constitutions and international agreements.

But looking into the case of Shincheonji and Lee Man-hee made me realize that religious freedom can be tested in complex real-world situations.

How should we respond when a religious group is socially unpopular?

How should we respond when its leader is accused of political wrongdoing?

And what else should we consider when that person is 95 years old?

And when international human rights organizations begin questioning how a case is being handled, what should we as a society examine more closely?

Of course, I don't think these are easy questions to answer.

But I think continuing to ask these questions is important in a democratic society.

Questioning whether the detention of an elderly defendant was appropriate does not mean declaring that person innocent.

We can wait for the court’s decision while still discussing whether the measures being taken are humane and proportionate.

I hope South Korea can maintain that balance.

Justice should be firm, but it should also be fair.

And I don't think freedom of religion should become less important simply because a religion is unfamiliar, controversial, or unpopular.

If human rights are truly universal, they should apply equally to people whose views differ from ours.

Not only to the majority, but also to minorities.

Not only to people we like, but also to people we disagree with.

Ultimately, to everyone.

 

 

A Final Thought

 

As a Korean woman who cares deeply about both Korean culture and human rights, I hope South Korea continues to grow not only as a cultural powerhouse, but also as a society where freedom of religion, freedom of expression, human dignity, and due process are equally protected for all.

The allegations against Lee Man-hee are a matter for the courts to determine.

But I believe the question of how we treat people throughout that process is something we should all consider.

That is why I don't think this case should be seen as simply a story about Shincheonji.

Ultimately, it is also a question about what kind of society we want to build.

Do we want a society where rights depend on who you are?

Or do we want a society where basic human dignity is protected even when we disagree with one another?

I hope South Korea chooses the latter.

 

Rights Groups Raise Alarm Over Religious Freedom in South Korea