‘명태균 무죄’ 부장판사 정직 3개월…“기업서 골프여행비 받아 품위 손상”

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recently determined that a prison had unlawfully restrained a prisoner for over nine hours using three types of protective equipment, ruling that the confinement amounted to a human rights violation. Even in cases of unavoidable necessity, protective equipment should be used in a reasonable manner and limited to a necessary extent, according to the NHRC.

On November 11th, the NHRC advised the prison director to thoroughly assess the necessity and appropriateness of protective equipment use in the case of △detainee and to conduct a training program for staff members, urging them to conduct video recordings and management of the protective equipment usage process. Protective equipment includes handcuffs, leg shackles, and other equipment used to restrain detainees when there is a concern they may attempt to escape, commit self-harm, or harm others.

Due to the detainee's refusal to comply with the prison staff's orders, multiple protective equipment were simultaneously worn by the detainee throughout a long period of time, which was deemed unjust by the NHRC in August last year. In response, the prison defended its actions by stating that the detainee had committed a clear breach of discipline, failed to respond to legitimate duties, and had a high likelihood of verbally or physically harming others.

According to the prison, it used protective equipment in accordance with the relevant laws. The NHRC's investigation revealed that the prison staff used three types of protective equipment simultaneously on the detainee, with actual usage time amounting to 9 hours and 25 minutes, excluding temporary release for meals and hygiene.

The NHRC's Second Review Committee (Chairwoman Kim Hae-jar) stated that protective equipment should only be used in the minimum necessary scope and that the prison's "Protective Equipment Usage Improvement Issues" policy prohibits the simultaneous use of multiple protective equipment. The committee acknowledged that using protective equipment in a specific range during that time was recognized, but that the necessity of using three types of protective equipment simultaneously was not sufficiently proven.

The NHRC also noted that the lack of bodycam footage made it difficult to verify the appropriateness of protective equipment use and physical force application during that time. The NHRC emphasized that while protecting the detainee's rights, it is also necessary to record the protective equipment usage process with video footage to protect law-abiding prison staff.