A. Background of the Case
In this case, the Constitutional Court held that the act of confining convicted prisoners in overcrowded detention center rooms violates the Constitution.
As of the time the complainant was confined in a detention center, the ratio of the number of actually confined persons to the prescribed number of persons to be confined in the relevant detention center reached 134% to 137%.
After being released, the complainant filed a constitutional complaint alleging that overcrowded confinement in a detention center infringed on fundamental rights, and the Constitutional Court judged the constitutionality of such act by recognizing the justiciable interests on the grounds that there were concerns that overcrowded confinement in correctional facilities would continue, and that this is an important issue concerning the basic treatment of convicted prisoners that requires constitutional clarification.
B. Summary of the Decision
The Constitutional Court ruled that overcrowded confinement in detention centers is in violation of the Constitution as it infringes on human dignity and worth, for the following reasons.
With regard to the exercise of the state’s authority to punish crimes, the human dignity and worth guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution prohibit the state from treating people as a mere object of a state action or imposing inhumane and cruel punishment in exercising its right to punishment, and, with regard to criminal administration, prohibit confining people in facilities that lack the basic requirements necessary for human survival.
In judging whether the complainant’s human dignity and worth have been infringed on due to overcrowded confinement in a correctional facility, it is necessary to consider various circumstances, comprehensively including the overall operation of the confinement facility and national budget issues. However, if the confinement space provided per person in a correctional facility is excessively small, so as to make it difficult for a convicted prisoner to satisfy the basic needs of a human being, then this exceeds the limitations on the exercise of a state’s authority to punish and in itself is an infringement of the human dignity and worth of the convicted prisoner.
The space available for use per person during the period the complainant was confined was 1.06 square meters to 1.27 square meters, which is highly insufficient for a Korean adult of average height to comfortably stretch his limbs and so small that he must lie on his side to sleep. Thus, the complainant is very likely to have suffered extreme pain, such as deterioration of physical and mental health or deprivation of the necessary conditions for basic activities as a personality, and thus, accommodation in a space overcrowded to a degree that does not allow the protection of minimum dignity as a human being infringes on the complainant’s human dignity and worth.
On the other hand, Justices Park Han-Chul, Kim Yi-Su, Ahn Chang-Ho, and Cho Yong-Ho set forth a supplementary opinion that, in light of Article 10 of the Constitution that guarantees human dignity and worth, and the related laws, international norms, and foreign precedents concerning the guarantee of basic treatment of convicted prisoners, a confinement space of at least 2.58 square meters per convicted prisoner should be secured in correctional facilities, and that, considering the practical difficulties in expansion, etc. of correctional facilities, their improvement to meet such criteria within a certain period (within five to seven years) is called for.
C. Significance of the Decision
There were views that, by confirming that overcrowded confinement in correctional facilities infringes on human dignity and worth, this decision not only clarified the limit of exercise of the state's authority to punish and contributed to the promotion of human rights of convicted prisoners, etc., but also reconfirmed that human dignity is a specific basic right as a subjective right (Kim Ha-Yeol; Prison Overcrowding and Human Dignity).
After this decision, a ruling recognized the state's liability for compensation of mental damage suffered by a convicted criminal for reason of illegality of overcrowded confinement (Busan High Court, 2014Na50975, August 31, 2017).