NHRCK Recommends: Detention Center's Use of Restraints Needs Review, Accessibility for Visually Impaired Must Improve.
The NHRCK recommended the Director of OO Detention Center to use "protective equipment" for inmates, taking into account the severity of their disabilities, and to guarantee the rights of communication of visually impaired inmates.
On 1 February 2024, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (Chairperson: Song Doo-hwan, hereinafter referred to as the "NHRCK") recommended to the Director of the OO Prison (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") that when applying "protective equipment" to inmates, consider the severity of their disabilities and it shall be applied in a gradual manner so that multiple “protective equipment” are not be used at the same time. Measures shall be taken to prevent such inappropriate use of 'protective equipment' by providing training for prison staff.
The NHRCK also recommended that there should be adequate measures to ensure that inmates with visual impairments have the same rights to communication as those without disabilities.
The petitioner, a person with severe visual impairment detained in OO Detention Center, filed a complaint with the NHRCK alleging that the respondent violated his right to liberty and right to communication by using excessive "protective equipment" and refusing to write a letter for the petitioner to send to an outside party.
In response to the complaint, the detention center responded that the "protective equipment" was used to prevent any threat of self-harm and harm to others, as the petitioner tried to harm the prison officers with threatening and aggressive behavior. It is true that the petitioner asked the prison officer to write a letter for him. However, the center replied that it was not part of the employee's duties to write a general letter for inmates, except for litigation-related documents or essential letters needed to stay in the center. The prison officer refused to write a letter for the petitioner on the grounds that he could write a letter using his own Braille slate.
The NHRCK Committee on Human Rights Violations 2 concluded that the respondent excessively restricted the petitioner's rights to liberty, going beyond the minimum necessary to achieve the desired objectives, by using "three different 'protective devices' (helmet, handcuffs and shackles)" at the same time, without using them alternately or gradually.
In order to guarantee the petitioner, who is visually impaired, the same right to communicate as other inmates, the petitioner should be able to send not only documents related to the trial, but also letters to communicate with people outside the prison, including family and friends. As the petitioner can only write Braille letters with the Braille slate, the petitioner's right to communication is limited as he cannot write normal letters to people who cannot read Braille letters. Pursuant to Article 26(4) of the Act on Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities and Remedy for Infringement of their Rights, the Director of the Prison is obliged to take reasonable measures to ensure the petitioner's right to communication on the same level as other inmates without disabilities. It was therefore concluded that the refusal to do so constituted discrimination against persons with disabilities.
Accordingly, the NHRCK recommended that the respondent take measures to prevent the recurrence of such cases by using "protective equipment", considering the severity of the inmate's disability, and prepare a plan to provide measures to guarantee the right to communicate to inmates with visual impairments.
