www.humanrights.go.kr ● Refusal to allow inmates’phone calls in detention facilities The Commission reviewed the complaint concerning refusal by the warden of XX Prison to allow the complainant to make a phone call, though the latter is allowed to make up to three phone calls a month. It determined that the refusal was not justified, as the purpose of the phone calls did not fall under the reasons to restrict, which are listed in the relevant statutes. Further, the refusal failed to meet the principle of minimum restriction on basic rights, and constituted a violation of the freedom of communication guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution and a violation of Article 44 of the Act of Penal Execution and Correctional Treatment. Thus, on 29 September, the Commission recommended that the warden establish and implement a set of The warden argued that the complainant’s phone request was refused because it was resolved through counselling with the prison’s complaint team or through letters. ● Use of CCTV to monitor inmates in custody The Commission reviewed the complaint concerning a decision by the warden of XX Detention Center to monitor the complainant in custody using CCTV to prevent him from committing suicide, harming himself, or causing other incidents due to his emotional state. It determined that, unlike other inmates who were detained in similar situations, the complainant was placed in custody in a CCTV-equipped room for approximately four days without any documentation of objective or systematic evaluation of the complainant as a suicide or selfinjury risk. The Commission determined that these actions and measures constituted a violation of the complainant’s personal rights and right to privacy. Thus, on 23 December, it recommended that the warden establish and operate a systematic mechanism for evaluating risk of suicide or self-injury when deciding to monitor inmates with CCTV. The Commission’s recommendation was that even if it was necessary to monitor an inmate using CCTV so as to prevent suicide or self-injury, such restriction should be minimal and must be based on a detailed review of the validity of each proposal and risk assessment. However, in this instance, no objective evidence was found that this was the case. 55 Commission's Major Activities inappropriate for him to call public institutions and the prosecution when his complaint could be Part II criteria for phone usage by inmates to prevent a recurrence of similar human rights violations.