Case on Overcrowded Detention Centers

[2013Hun-Ma142, December 29, 2016]

In this case, the Constitutional Court held that the act of confining convicted prisoners in detention center rooms that do not provide the minimum space required by a person infringes upon human dignity and worth, and thus violates the Constitution.

Background of the Case

(1) The complainant was sentenced to a fine of 700 thousand won for the crime of interfering with business, but was ordered to be confined in a workhouse for refusing to pay the fine and was consequently confined in Room 14 on the ground level of Building 13 at the Seoul Detention Center (8.96 ㎡, 6 pax, hereinafter referred to as the “Room at Issue”) from approximately 16:00 on December 8, 2012, to 13:00 on December 18, 2012, after which the complainant was released when his sentence period expired.

(2) On March 7, 2013, the complainant filed a constitutional complaint on the grounds that the conduct of the respondent, the warden of the Seoul Detention Center, of confining the complainant from 16:00 on December 8, 2012, to 13:00 on December 18, 2012, in the Room at Issue infringed upon the complainant’s fundamental rights, including his human dignity and worth.

Subject Matter of Review

The subject matter of this case is whether the respondent’s conduct of confining the complainant in the Room at Issue from 16:00 on December 8, 2012 to 13:00 on December 18, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Confinement at Issue”) infringes on the fundamental rights of the complainant.

Summary of the Decision

1. Review of the Legal Prerequisites

The complainant has already been released upon the expiration of his period of sentence, and thus the complainant’s rights cannot be remedied even if the request for adjudication of this case is accepted. However, there are concerns that the problem at issue, which concerns the conduct of overcrowding prisoners in correctional institutions, may continue, and since this involves an important issue regarding the basic treatment of convicted prisoners and thus requires constitutional clarification, the justiciable interests are accepted as an exception.

2. Limitations on the Exercise of the State’s Authority to Punish Crime

With regard to the exercise of the state’s authority to punish crime, the human dignity and worth guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution prohibit treating people as a mere object of state action or imposing inhumane, cruel punishment, and, in the case of criminal administration, prohibit confining people in facilities that lack the basic requirements necessary for human survival. Although it may be inevitable to restrict the fundamental rights of a convicted prisoner to the minimum extent necessary to achieve the purpose of confinement, under no circumstances can the state harm the human dignity and worth of a convicted prisoner.

3. Whether the Confinement at Issue Infringes Upon the Human Dignity and Worth of the Complainant

In judging whether the complainant’s human dignity and worth have been infringed upon by being confined in correctional facilities lacking the basic requirements needed for human survival, it is necessary to

consider, in addition to the confinement space available per person, various circumstances including the overall operation of the confinement facilities, for instance the number of convicted prisoners and prison wards; the period of confinement; and national budget issues, among others. However, if the confinement space provided per person in the correctional facilities is excessively small, so as to make it difficult for the convicted prisoner to have the basic needs of a human being, then this exceeds the limitations on the exercise of a state’s authority to punish and in itself is an infringement of the human dignity and worth of the convicted prisoner.

In this case, the space that was available for use per person during the time the male adult complainant was confined in the Room at Issue was 1.06 ㎡ for two days and 16 hours and 1.27 ㎡ for six days and five hours. Such space is insufficient for a Korean male adult of average height to comfortably stretch his limbs, and so small that one must lie on one’s side to sleep. Thus, even considering the overall circumstances, such as the period the complainant was confined in the Room at Issue, and the time he spent outside of the Room at Issue due to visits and exercise, it is highly probable that the complainant experienced severe distress in the Room at Issue in the form of deterioration of physical or mental health, or deprivation of the requirements needed for the basic activities of a human being. Therefore, the Confinement at Issue, which took place in a space overcrowded to the extent that the complainant could not maintain his minimum dignity as a human being, infringes upon the human dignity and worth of the complainant.

Summary of Concurring Opinion of Four Justices

In light of Article 10 of the Constitution which prescribes the inviolable dignity and worth of humans, the ‘Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act,’ the ‘Basic Rules for Legal Facilities,’ and the ‘Guidelines on Separate Confinement and Transfer and Recording, etc.’ that aim to guarantee at least the basic

treatment of convicted prisoners, and the relevant international norms and judicial precedents in other countries, the state, to protect the convicted prisoner’s human dignity and worth during confinement, should secure a confinement space of at least 2.58 ㎡ per each convicted prisoner within the correctional facilities. Nevertheless, considering the practical difficulties with regard to expanding correctional facilities, we call for improvements to be made in line with the aforementioned criteria within a certain period (within five to seven years at the latest).