Key Activities arm to break. Thus, it concluded that it was a violation of the principle of proportionality and the freedom of action. The police station accepted the recommendation. Unjustified arrest without warrant and use of handcuffs by the police The Commission concluded that handcuffing a suspect and arresting him without warrant, in an interview room where he was being interrogated with his attorney present, because the suspect would not admit to tax evasion charges and there was risk of spoliation of evidence, is a violation of the suspect’s freedom of action. On November 19, it recommended that the chief of the police station in question train its officers on correct procedures of arrest without warrant and use of police tools. The Commission concluded that the possibility of spoliation of evidence is not, by itself, a condition for arrest without warrant. Also, arresting a suspect without warrant requires an emergency situation in which obtaining a court warrant of arrest is not possible. In this case, however, the Commission found no such urgency as the petitioner was being interrogated with his attorney present, and there was no “situation where the suspect is found by chance” as specified under Article 200-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and enough evidential materials to characterize the charges had already been secured through interrogation. Human rights violation caused by excessive use of handcuffs in a holding cell The Commission concluded that excessive use of handcuffs to constrain a person caught in the act and locked in a holding cell because of the continuous commotion he caused, and the fact that there were no partitions in the toilet inside the cell, constitute violations of freedom of action and of privacy, respectively. On December 20, it recommended that the chief of the police station in question share lessons learned, and that the chief of the National Police Agency revise the pertinent regulations. The Commission concluded that the existence of CCTV blind spots does not justify physical constraints, and that the victim already had limited mobility in the holding cell as his hands were handcuffed behind the back. But using a second handcuff to a wall to further constrain the victim is not only humiliating but also violates freedom of action. 80