NHRC Issues Recommendation to Minister of Justice and to Yeoju Correctional Institution Warden: Recommended Measures Include Destruction of「Personal Information Files」 at Yeoju CI
Responding to a July 2003 complaint against the warden of the Yeoju Correctional Institution (Yeoju CI) and submitted by Kim (29), charging that Kim’s human rights were violated when (1) despite lacking any legal grounds, the Yeoju CI compiled sensitive and detailed personal information on inmates into a「personal information file,」 (2) Yeoju CI was negligent in its upkeep of such personal information files such that other inmates had access to and could enter different information into such files, and (3) because of this, the petitioner was subject to threats from other inmates, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) found that the Yeoju CI practices violated inmates’ rights and issued a recommendation for the Yeoju CI to prevent recurrence of such violations.
The NHRC recommended: (1) that the Minister of Justice issue a warning to the Yeoju CI warden and other officers at similar facilities, take action to prevent such violations at other correctional institutions, and when needed, that the Ministry of Justice implement criteria relating to inmates’ personal information, and (2) that the Yeoju CI warden put an end to creation of such detailed personal information files and gather up existing files for destruction as well as put into place measures to prevent recurrence of similar incidents.
Claiming that such information was necessary to decide pay levels for individual prisoners working in the prison factory, the Yeoju CI created a「personal information file」 form which included spaces for filling in: inmate number, full name, offense, date of birth, prison sentence, expected date of release, address, family member information, educational background, longitudinal reports on behavior, religion, number of days worked, date of imprisonment, summary of his or her crime, and space for additional notes.
After examining real personal information files obtained in January 2004, the NHRC ascertained the following. In the「family member information」 space, the ages of family members were listed in one case, and in most cases the files marked whether the inmate or the inmate’s parents were divorced. In the「summary of crime」 line, the facts of the criminal case, the term of the sentence, the number of recuperation days when there was injury involved, whether the inmate settled with the plaintiffs, whether there were fines or other money collected, and, listed alongside, places for recording telephone numbers (including cell phone numbers). In the space for notes, the prison had recorded information such as: occupation before incarceration, cell number, whether there had been either visitors or mail for the inmate, whether there was any money held in custody, criminal record including whether one was a first-time or repeat offender, whether an inmate was subject to additional punishment, the inmate’s overall health, and whether an inmate was capable of working. Additionally, inmates’ hometown, schools attended and the name of inmates’ former places of employment were also noted.
However, the NHRC confirmed that (1) there was no legal grounds on which to compile and keep such detailed personal information files, (2) whenever the responsible officer was changed, the existing file was destroyed and a new one written up, and (3) in particular, certain inmates assigned as assistants to correctional officers in a limited number of tasks were able to write up the new file instead.
The NHRC (1) finds that the Yeoju CI practices breached inmates’ privacy rights and liberties, (2) holds that even if one is a prisoner, he or she is not obligated to provide personal information in excess of what is recognized as justified and necessary for prison officers in the carrying out of duties, and (3) in particular, any personal information must be strictly controlled because of the risk that another inmate could acquire and exploit such personal information.
Comprehensive consideration of the above led to the conclusion that because the Yeoju CI had discretionarily compiled and negligently maintained such sensitive information on inmates: (1) inmates’ privacy rights (guaranteed in article 17 of the Constitution) were infringed, (2) the petitioner suffered harms to his personal dignity and value as a human being (Constitution, article 10), and (3) such behavior breached article 69 of the State Public Officials Act (duty of confidentiality). Thus, the Commission issued recommendations to both the Minister of Justice and the Yeoju CI warden to each undertake necessary corrective measures. It must be said, however, that such problems stemmed from—not so much the actions of individual correctional institution officers—but rather, the overall culture at Yeoju IC: a lack of awareness of the risks associated with allowing inmates to alter another inmate’s sensitive personal information and prioritization of expediency in handling administrative affairs. As such, the recommendation did not include disciplinary measures against individual officers. –End.
