Installation and Maintenance of Lavatories at Police Detention FacilitiesCase

(13-2 KCCR 103, 2000Hun-Ma546, July 19, 2001)

In this case, the Constitutional Court declared that the lavatoriesat police detention facilities extremely lacking sufficient cover of users violated the complainants' right to personality derived from the humandignity and worth stated on Article 10 of the Constitution.

A. Background of the Case

Police detention facilities are places where individuals detainedthrough legal procedures, or individuals subject to the decision of ajudge or a disposition restricting bodily freedom, are confined. Thefacilities mainly confine arrested or detained suspects. Complainantswere arrested at the scene for violating the Assembly and Demon-stration Act, and were kept at a police detention facility for about48 hours. At the police station, the complainants were denied the useof bathrooms outside of the detention facility. However, lavatorywithin the detention facility was of an open structure with insuf-ficient cover and it did not cover all parts of the users' body fromexposure. The complainants filed a constitutional complaint arguingthat the forced use of such lavatory within the detention facilitiesviolated basic rights, such as human dignity and worth, stated inArticle 10 of the Constitution.

B. Summary of the Decision

The Constitutional Court, on a unanimous vote, declared that in-stallation and maintenance of such inhumane lavatory facilities vio- lated the right of personality protected by Article 10 of the Consti-tution, and ruled as follows:

Restriction of the freedom and basic rights of a detainee whois presumed innocent should be kept to a minimal extent necessaryto prevent the detainee from escaping or destroying evidence and to maintain order and safety of the detention facility.

It is necessary to keep an eye on the actions of the detaineesbecause there are detainees who, in a very unstable state, hurt one-self or commit suicide, attack other detainees, or attempt to escape.Therefore, installing a lavatory within the detention facility so thatdetainees do not have to go outside the detention facility, and de-signing the detention facility structure so as to allow observation ofthe lavatory as well as the detention cell has legitimate purpose.However, attention should not be only given to efficiency of sur-veillance and control of order.

Forcing all detainees to use such an inadequate lavatory exposure would constitute excessive restriction on detainees' freedom and basicrights, and it is against the principle of proportionality requiring em-ployment of least restrictive means when restricting people's basicrights.

It is not impossible to install a lavatory facility providing moresufficient cover for users while enabling surveillance of the actions of all detainees in the detention facility.

The complainants must have felt ashamed, embarrassed, and hu-miliated whenever using a lavatory because their most private bodyparts could be exposed and unbearable stench and loud noise followedthe use. Some may have suppressed the bodily needs. Other de-tainees must have felt displeased and offended whenever someoneelse used the lavatory.

Article 10 of the Constitution states that "all citizens shall be assured of human dignity and worth and have the right to pursuehappiness." Human dignity and worth, which is the ultimate purposeof all basic rights, and a fundamental ideal, should be respected tothe utmost extent at all circumstances.

Forcing the complainants to use the aforementioned lavatory dur-ing the entire detention period takes away the most basic humandignity of the complainants, beyond endurance, and it violates theright to personality derived from Article 10 of the Constitution.