The prosecution's "statement analysis" procedure, which assesses the credibility of sexual assault victims' testimony, will be expanded from its current focus on children and people with disabilities to include adult victims. The move is seen as an effort to more systematically review the consistency and credibility of victim testimony in sexual assault cases, where physical evidence is often difficult to secure, and to use the analysis in investigations and prosecutions.
According to the legal community on Wednesday, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office revised its internal "Statement Analysis Regulations" on Nov. 21. The revision adds sexual assault victims to the scope of statement analysis. Under the previous rules, the procedure applied to victims of sexual offenses under age 13, victims with intellectual disabilities, and victims under age 18 in child abuse cases. With the revision, statements by adult victims of sexual assault can now also be subject to analysis.
Ahead of the expansion, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office conducted a pilot statement analysis program on adult sexual assault victim cases from April to August last year. It also presented its "research findings on the expansion of statement analysis subjects" at the European Association of Psychology and Law (EAPL) conference held in Lithuania in August last year, continuing related discussions.
Statement analysis is an investigative support procedure that uses psychological, linguistic, and behavioral science techniques to examine the credibility of victim testimony. Conducted at the request of frontline prosecutors' offices, it has been mainly used in sexual offense or abuse cases involving children and people with disabilities, where the victim's statement serves as key evidence in the absence of other physical evidence. Between 100 and 200 analyses are conducted each year, and the results are used as reference material for determining whether to indict during investigations or for explaining the credibility of testimony in court.
However, not all cases are eligible for statement analysis. Cases excluded from the procedure include those where communication is deemed difficult due to limited intelligence or vocabulary, cases involving individuals diagnosed with or being treated for mental illness, cases where testimony may have been distorted by medication, and cases where significant time has elapsed since the incident, resulting in serious deterioration of testimony.
The problem is that while the scope of work is expanding, the personnel base to handle it remains weak. Considering the workload, the prosecution increased the number of statement analysts from 12 in 2021 to 22 last year, with one additional hire this year. However, only three of the total are permanent civil servants, while about 90 percent work as public service workers on indefinite-term contracts.
"Most statement analysts are specialized personnel holding master's degrees or higher, but their status remains that of public service workers," an official in the legal community said. "Despite the work requiring a high level of expertise, their treatment and status are unstable, leading to departures every year." The official added, "The Major Crimes Investigation Agency and the Public Prosecution Agency are scheduled to be newly established following the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office, but it has not yet been decided which organization the statement analysts will be assigned to. To operate the statement analysis system stably, issues such as their affiliation, status, and permanent employment must first be settled."
