Human Rights Commission: "Unfair Investigation and Detention Procedures for Victims Reporting in Prisons Must Be Improved"

The National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) has urged that the system be improved to ensure that victims reporting incidents within correctional facilities do not undergo unfair investigative detention procedures.

On the 30th, the NHRCK announced that it recommended the Minister of Justice to establish specific guidelines to prevent automatic segregation during investigative detention in correctional facilities and to allow segregation only when there are reasonable grounds. Furthermore, it emphasized that the period of segregation should be limited to the necessary scope for purposes such as preventing evidence tampering, and that restrictions such as outdoor exercise limitations, video surveillance, and behavioral restrictions during the segregation period should be minimized through specific guidelines.

The NHRCK also recommended the warden of Prison A to pay close attention to related duties to ensure that victims who report incidents are not subjected to investigative detention or treatment restrictions that violate their human rights, and to prepare measures to mitigate or offset any disadvantages suffered by detainees who are found not guilty after investigative detention.

According to the NHRCK, the petitioner reported an incident of "assault and sexual harassment within the ward" to the warden of Prison A in March last year, but was instead subjected to long-term investigative detention because the perpetrator gave contradictory statements. The petitioner filed a complaint with the NHRCK, claiming a violation of physical liberty.

The warden of Prison A explained, "We collected written statements from both the perpetrator and the victim regarding the assault and sexual harassment allegations, but their accounts contradicted each other," and added, "Due to concerns about evidence tampering, both parties were investigated and segregated."

The NHRCK stated, "The petitioner reported the perpetrator's continuous sexual harassment, and two inmate witnesses in the same room gave statements consistent with this. Considering that only the perpetrator gave contradictory statements, it is difficult to accept the warden of Prison A's claim that segregation was unavoidable to clarify the facts."

Furthermore, the NHRCK explained, "Since the perpetrator confessed to the sexual harassment against the petitioner during the segregation period, the warden of Prison A should have promptly concluded the investigation to avoid excessively restricting the petitioner's physical liberty," and added, "The investigative detention of the petitioner was continued for the unconvincing reason of preparing for possible statement reversals."

It continued, "The current investigative detention system within correctional facilities is being used in correctional practice almost like a punishment beyond a fair investigative procedure," and stated, "If punishment is confirmed after the investigation, the period of investigative detention is deducted from the punishment period. However, it is unreasonable that petitioners like this case are unjustly subjected to investigative detention without any compensation. Relevant agencies should prepare and implement measures to prevent the adverse effects of investigative detention."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.