Long-Term Constant Handcuffing

(15-2(B) KCCR 562, 2001Hun-Ma163, December 18, 2003)

Held, the act of thewarden of a prison handcuffing the complain-

ant detained in the same prisonat all times for the sum of three-

hundred and ninety-two(392) days so that the complainant could not use either arm under metal and leather handcuffs is unconstitutional, as an infringement upon the freedom from bodily restraint and the human dignity of the complainant.

A. Background of the Case

The complainant, while detained in Gwangjoo Prison, was indictedfor further offenses including robbery. During the trial therefor at Gwangjoo District Court, the complainant stabbed a prison officeron duty at the courtroom with a previously prepared weapon and fled.The complainant thereafter was arrested and confined in the same prison.

The warden of Gwangjoo Prison imposed a sanction of two monthsof disciplinary confinement upon the complainant pursuant to the Crim-

inal Administration Act on the ground of above flight, during the periodof which the complainant was confined in the sanction room and was banned from visits, reception of mail, telephone correspondence,writing, labor, exercise, newspaper, and reading. Further, the wardenof Gwangjoo Prison ordered handcuffing of the complainant among such prohibitory devices used to prevent flight and self-harming ofthe detainees and to maintain safety and order within the prison. Thecomplainant thereby had been forced to wear two metal handcuffs andone leather handcuff since the confinement to the disciplinary room, which continued until after the end of the disciplinary confinementperiod, and the complainant wore the above devices for three-hundredand ninety-two(392) consecutive days until transferred to another prison. The complainant thereupon filed the constitutional complaint in this case on the ground that the above use of prohibitory devices violated such basic rights of the complainant as the human dignity and value and the freedom from bodily restraint.

B. Summary of the Decision

The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that the act of the Warden of Gwangjoo Prison using the prohibitory devices as indicated above is unconstitutional as infringing upon the basic rights of the complainant. The grounds therefor are stated in the following paragraphs.

(1)The detainee who is wearing the prohibitory device is greatlyrestrained in bodily movement of arms and legs and is subject to a high probability of harming physical and mental health. Therefore, prohibitory devices should be, more than anything else, used withinthe scope that could maintain the state of physical and mental healthof the detainee and should be limitedly used to the minimum extentnecessary to remove specific, clear, and imminent danger to the safetyof the facility and the order of life under detention. Even in such circumstances, such devices should be used in a way that allows maintenance of basic dignity as a human being.

(2) Prohibitory devices are used based on the Criminal Adminis-

tration Act in order to prevent flight, violence, uprising, or suicide of the detainee and to maintain safety and order of the prison, and include binding ropes, handcuffs, chains, and protective facial masks. Among these, the metal handcuffs the complainant was wearing hada closure mechanism in the shape of saw blades or biting clutch, fixingboth arms when used on the wrists; the leather handcuff is a devicefixing both arms to the waist using a waistband and wristbands, theusage of which can extremely limit the scope of movability of the wearer.

The complainant constantly wore a leather handcuff and two setsof metal handcuffs and lived in the state under which two arms were fixed to the body, for a period longer than one year, with theexception that such devices were temporarily removed for preparationof petition and other litigation documents, cleaning and laundry once or, if often, several times per week, for thirty minutes to two hours at each of such occasions. The complainant could not perform daily life in a normal fashion, as the complainant was forced to eat, excrete, and sleep under such state.

(3)The purpose of the act of using the subject prohibitory devicessuch as handcuffs by the respondent as the warden of the prison responsible for the maintenance of safety and order of the detentionfacility to prevent flight, suicide, and self-harming of the complainantwas legitimate, and the use of the subject prohibitory devices wasan appropriate means to achieve such purpose. However, even if theuse of prohibitory devices itself was an appropriate means to achievelegitimate purpose, the usage of subject prohibitory devices in this case can hardly be justified in light of the period of usage thereof and the degree of harm suffered by the complainant.

The use of prohibitory devices in this case lasted for over oneyear. Such prolonged use of prohibitory devices might probably havecaused harm to the physical and mental health of the complainant. Also, the complainant was thereby forced, for a long period of time, to a life where even a minimum degree of dignity as a human beingcould hardly be maintained. Despite the complainant's previous historyof flight and the danger of suicideand self-harming due to the com-

plainant's mental instability and conflict, such history and propensitycould not be a particular ground sufficientto justify the use of pro-

hibitory devices to the extent that both arms were constantly and completely fixed to the body throughout the entire detention period for over one year. Prohibitory devices should be used when there is a specific need, to the minimum degree that is necessary. This equally applies to someone with a previous history of flight or a violent propensity. Furthermore, for use of prohibitory devices for along-term prohibiting any meaningful or useful bodily movement uponsomeone not in transit but detained in a prison, there should be amore specific and clear

grounds therefor such as the current possibilityof flight or the impossibility of controlling violent conducts, than suchvague grounds as previous history, propensity, or 'instability due to grave sentence.'

(4) Therefore, the use of prohibitory devices in this case exces-

sively restricted the complainant's freedom of bodily movement beyonda necessary degree in excess of the limit on the restriction of basicright, abridged the complainant's freedom from bodily restraint by depriving the complainant of minimally humane life, and, further,violated the human dignity of the complainant.