Searching Suspect Naked Is Human Rights Violation
A suspect who was caught interfering in somebody else's business operations was enraged by a police officer who searched his body naked without a body search gown before imprisonment. The suspect brought the case to the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK; Chair: Ahn Kyong-hwan). The Commission deemed the act of the police officer to be a violation of Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which upholds human worth and dignity, as well as a violation of Article 12, which mandates due process in interfering with a citizen's personal liberty. The Commission has recommended that the head of the police station issue a note of caution to the police officer and provide job training to the employees in charge of body searches to prevent recurrence of similar cases.
On September 12, 2007, the complainant (Mr. K) and his friend got into an altercation with the owner of a public bath facility in their village and ended up being arrested for interfering with the facility owner's business and taken to the police station. Mr. K's friend was subjected only to a simple body search, but Mr. K was forced to go through a thorough body search naked without a body search gown. Outraged, Mr. K filed a complaint with the NHRCK to the effect that the police officer humiliated him, violating his human rights.
In response, the respondent explained that while the complainant's friend obediently followed the imprisonment procedure and thus needed only a simple body search, Mr. K made a scene without good reason. He (i) refused to give his personal information, (ii) verbally abused other inmates and the guards, and (iii) kicked at the cabinet. The body search was necessary to prevent him from injuring himself and others.
The NHRCK deems it proper for the respondent to have conducted a thorough body search in light of Article 8, Paragraph 4 of the Regulations on the Transport and Imprisonment of Suspects, which is a set of directives of the Korean National Police Agency. (The foregoing paragraph stipulates that an inmate whose crime is material like murder, robbery, theft, rape, or arson or who is deemed to likely injure themselves or other inmates shall undergo a thorough body search for any dangerous item after they are placed in a changing partition to fully undress and put on a body search gown.) However, the Commission also notes that Paragraph 3 of the same article requires the guard or officer in charge to explain the purpose and procedure of the body search to the inmate concerned beforehand in order to encourage the inmate to voluntarily submit any dangerous item he or she may be carrying. According to the paragraph, the respondent should have explained the purpose and procedure of the body search to the complainant in advance and given him a body search gown to wear during the search, but he did not, violating Article 12 of the Constitution, which mandates due procedures in interfering with a citizen's personal liberty. Furthermore, the Commission deems that the respondent humiliated the complainant by conducting an excessive body search in breach of Article 10 of the Constitution, which guarantees human worth and dignity.
In order to prevent any recurrence of identical or similar human rights violations and in accordance with Article 44, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the National Human Rights Commission Act, the NHRCK recommended that the head of the police station issue a note of caution to the respondent and provide job training to those in charge of the protection of inmates so that they will not violate the body search procedures and the human rights of inmates.
