[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Gwan-ju] The National Human Rights Commission has determined that requiring prison inmates to wear protective equipment for extended periods, including during bedtime, constitutes a human rights violation.
On the 20th, the Human Rights Commission recommended that Warden A and Warden B conduct job training for correctional officers to use protective equipment only within the minimally necessary scope, and advised the head of the C Regional Correctional Office to issue warnings to those responsible for actions related to the protective equipment.
The petitioners, who were respectively detained at the prisons in question, filed complaints with the Human Rights Commission stating that correctional officers excessively used protective equipment for long hours without removing it even during bedtime, thereby violating their human rights.
In response, the prisons claimed that the petitioners were in an agitated state, verbally abusing and insulting staff, and that protective equipment was used on the petitioners following due process due to concerns about self-harm and harm to others.
According to the Human Rights Commission's investigation, Prison A used rear handcuffs on the petitioner for 20 hours and ankle restraints for 21 hours and 40 minutes from October 21 to 22, 2019, and used rear handcuffs for 57 hours and 50 minutes and ankle restraints for 59 hours and 45 minutes from October 27 to 30, 2019. Except for two brief interruptions totaling 15 minutes during bedtime for reasons such as using the restroom, rear handcuffs and ankle restraints were continuously used.
Prison B also used ankle restraints on the petitioner for 6 days and 10 hours and 55 minutes, metal protective guards for 5 days and 22 hours and 35 minutes, and head protective equipment for 17 hours and 30 minutes from May 7 to 14, 2020, continuously using metal guards and ankle restraints even during bedtime.
The Human Rights Commission concluded that when using protective equipment in prisons, the use should be permitted only within the minimally necessary scope, considering the degree of infringement on basic rights caused by the equipment and whether there are alternative measures besides protective equipment. In particular, it emphasized the need for stricter evaluation of usage conditions when protective equipment is used for extended periods, including during bedtime.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.


