74 NHRCK, Decision on human rights violation cases caused by overcrowding in correctional institutions (three other cases combined with Case No. 21Jinjeong0032900, November 2021). The investigation findings of this case revealed that all the complainants had lived in an overcrowded ward exceeding its full capacity for a certain period of time during confinement. Among them was a complainant who had lived in a ward with a size of approximately 1.4 ㎡ per inmate for roughly 15 days. Another complainant had lived in an overcrowded ward for around 120 days out of the total 224 days of confinement. 75 NHRCK, Recommendation for the improvement of inmates’ human rights based on on-site investigations of correctional facilities in 2018 (January 2019). 76 In accordance with Article 108 and Article 109 of the Act on Execution of Sentences and Treatment of Inmates, solitary confinement (disciplinary segregation) during disciplinary proceedings shall be allowed for up to 30 days, and 45 days if imposition of disciplinary action is aggravated. Meanwhile, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) prohibit solitary confinement exceeding 15 consecutive days. The NHRCK’s on-site investigations of correctional facilities in 2018 confirmed cases where the actual period of solitary confinement (disciplinary segregation), including the confinement for interrogations and consecutive disciplinary action, had exceeded 30 or 45 days, as well as one case where an inmate had been housed in disciplinary segregation for 95 days. 77 Specifically, the Ministry of Justice replied that it would not implement some recommendations by the NHRCK based on the following grounds: As for the wearing of an identification card by members of the Correctional Rapid Patrol Team, the ministry claimed that members of the team are threatened, petitioned, charged or accused by inmates in reality; limitations exist in terms of free deliberation and the appointment of external members for the establishment of disciplinary committees and relevant regulations; and concerning the NHRCK recommendations on restricting the disciplinary action period and consecutive impositions, the consecutive execution of disciplinary segregation itself cannot be seen as excessive, and it is difficult to take other measures in the case of continuous rule violations, such as disturbances during the disciplinary segregation. 78 NHRCK, Recommendation for the improvement of inmates’ human rights based on on-site investigations of correctional facilities in 2021 (July 2022). 79 Ibid. 80 Article 243-2 (Counsel’s Participation) of the Criminal Procedure Act: (1) Upon receiving an application from a criminal suspect, his/her counsel, legal representative, spouse, lineal relative, or sibling, a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer shall allow the counsel to have an interview with the suspect or shall allow the counsel to participate in the interrogation of the suspect, unless there is good cause. 81 Concerning the “good cause,” the Supreme Court viewed that it refers to cases where it is objectively obvious that a counsel may interfere with interrogations or leak investigative confidential information. 82 NHRCK, Recommendation for the formulation of the 4th NAP (July 2022). 36