Constitutional Complaint against Reducing Time Limit for Inmate Video Visit Case

[21-2(A) KCCR 725, 2007Hun-Ma738, September 24, 2009]

In this case, the complainant who is a prison inmate filed this constitutional complaint against the warden of the Daejeon Prison, arguing that the warden's practice of reducing time limit for inmate video visit to less than 10 minutes per each session for seven times is excessive restriction on the right to interview and communicate and therefore, violates the rule against excessive restriction stipulated in Article 37, Section 2 of the Constitution, infringing upon the complainant's human dignity and value and the right to pursue happiness.

Background of the Case

After the 'management system of unattended inmate visit' which allows inmates to communicate with their visitors including family members without the attendance of a correction officer was introduced into the Daejeon Prison on April 2, 2007. The warden of the Daejeon Prison reduced the time limit for video visit to less than 10 minutes per each session for seven times, which was shorter than before the introduction of such management system. Against this practice, the complainant filed this constitutional complaint.

Subject Matter of Review

Subject matter of this case is whether the practice of reducing time limit for inmate video visit to less than 10 minutes per each session for seven times by the warden of the Daejeon Prison infringes on complainant's basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Summary of the Decision

In a unanimous vote of all Justices, the Constitutional Court held

the warden's practice of giving less than 10 minutes for a video visit session does not infringe on complainant's basic rights. The summary of the decision is as follows:

1.The practice of imposing time limit on video visit in this case had already been terminated when this constitutional complaint was filed. Therefore, the justiciable interests of the complainant who asks for judgment on the aforementioned practice to us also evaporated. However, given the current situation regarding meeting room facilities in correctional institutions and the number of correction officers in charge of inmate visit, it is also expected that such practice of imposing less than 10 minutes for each video visit session may reoccur in the future. Also, as the reduction of time limit for video visit, adding yet another restriction on the basic rights including the right to interview and communicate of the inmates whose basic rights are already restricted as confined in correctional faculties, is a very important issue in relation to the basic treatment of inmates, constitutional clarification for the limitation bears significant meaning for the protection of the constitutional order.

2.The basic rights, including physical freedom, of the inmate incarcerated for the execution of punishment of restricting physical freedom are inevitably limited by the confinement and the fundamental rights whose protection presuppose contact with outside world or require active assistance from correctional facilities are substantially restricted for the purpose of correction. Also, the inmates incarcerated for the execution of punishment of restricting physical freedom upon final sentencing has the status distinguished from that of the detainees. Thus, in relation to the inmates, Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act prescribing "a prisoner's interview with a visitor is limited to 30 minutes" should be regarded as a non-mandatory provision which allows the correctional facility to provide the inmates and their family with appropriate protection of the right to interview at discretion. Therefore, the time limit imposed on the inmate visit is a matter within the discretion of the related administrative offices including the warden to the extent that such disposition does not infringe upon the fundamental aspect of the right

to interview and communicate.

3.The practice of the warden in this case permitting less than 10 minutes for each video visit session for seven times is reasonable restriction within the boundary of the necessary minimum degree, pursuant to the administrative purpose to equally and reasonably guarantee other inmates or detainees the right to interview and communication in consideration of the human resources and facilities of the Daejeon Prison at that time. Therefore, the practice of the warden in this case does not seem to excessively restrict the complainant's right to interview and communicate. Consequently, the warden's reducing time limit for video visit in this case does not violate the rule against excessive restriction, going beyond the administrative discretion, and therefore, does not infringe upon the complainant's basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as human worth and dignity and the right to pursue happiness.