22.Installation of CCTV at Solitary Confinement Cell in Detention Center Case

[23-2(A) KCCR 726, 2010Hun-Ma413, September 29, 2011]

The Constitutional Court held that the installation of a closed-circuit television (CCTV) at the solitary confinement of the complainant, a post-conviction inmate, in order to guard and prevent the complainant from suicide, does not infringe the privacy right of the complainant.

Background of the Case

While the complainant was detained in ○○ Detention Center, the warden of that center installed a CCTV at the jail cell of the complainant and guarded the complainant by using that CCTV. The complainant, on July 5, 2010, filed this constitutional complaint contending that such 24 hour surveillance of him by using a CCTV amounts to an infringement on his basic rights guaranteed by Article 10 and Article 17 of the Constitution.

Summary of Decision

CCTV surveillance may be necessary to effectively keep an eye on an inmate with a higher risk of hurting himself or committing suicide and to prevent accidents in order to maintain order in correctional facilities. CCTV surveillance, however, shall be used only when necessary and should be a least restrictive means in accordance of Article 37 Section 2 of the Constitution as CCTV surveillance continues to watch and record an inmate's every movement 24 hours a day and thereby amounts to a restriction on that inmate's privacy right.

In the instant case, the CCTV surveillance purported to secure the safety of the complainant's life and health and this purpose is legitimate. Also, CCTV surveillance is deemed as a proper means to achieve that purpose because an observation only by a prison guard's

eyes creates a temporal and spatial vacuum in the prevention of prison accidents including suicide and self-injury.

In light of the Act on the Execution of Sentence and the Treatment of Prisoners (revised by Act No. 8728 on December 21, 2007 andenforced on December 22, 2008, hereinafter "ESTP") and its enforcementdecree, various provisions regulating CCTV installation and operation are set forth in order to minimize the harm to inmates caused by the CCTV surveillance so that the restraint on the complainant's privacy is imposed in the least restrictive manner. Moreover, it would be difficult to find a more effective means than a continuous watch on the complainant's actions by the installation of CCTV for an immediate response to an emergency of suicidal attempt, considering the reality that it is impossible to provide sufficient personnel for a continuous, uninterrupted, direct monitoring. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the CCTV surveillance satisfies the element of least restrictive means.

Moreover, CCTV surveillance of the instant case strikes the balance between the interests related because the public interest in protecting the complainant's life and health and maintaining security and order in correctional facilities is no less important than the private interest in protecting the complainant's privacy right even though that surveillance substantially restricts on the complainant's privacy.

Therefore, we conclude that the CCTV surveillance of the instant case did not infringe on the complainant's privacy rights in violation of the rule against excessive restriction.