2026-08-11
150
[Joint Press Release]
“Detainees Are Human Too! Take Immediate Measures Against Lethal Heat in Detention!”
Emergency Press Conference Condemning Heat Conditions in Detention Facilities and Demanding Countermeasures
○ Title: Emergency Press Conference Condemning Heat Conditions in Detention Facilities and Demanding Countermeasures
○ Date and time: Tuesday, August 11, 2026, 11:30 a.m.
○ Place: In front of the Cheong Wa Dae Sarangchae
○ Co-hosts: The signatory organizations below
○ Order of the press conference
– Moderator: Attorney Seo Chaewan (Head of the International Team, Lawyers for a Democratic Society)
– Speech 1:
– Speech 2:
– Speech 3:
– Speech 4:
※ After the press conference, the “Civil Society Opinion on the Problem of Detention in Extreme Heat in Detention Facilities” will be delivered to Cheong Wa Dae.
※ Inquiries: Attorney Kim Donghyeon (Lawyers Group for Public Interest Human Rights, Law for Hope) 010-2762-8952
We thank the press, which works toward a democratic society, for its efforts.
-
As record-breaking heat continues day after day, people held in correctional facilities and immigration detention centers cannot escape the heat or move to an air-conditioned place, and their lives and health are under threat.
-
According to recent press reports, the temperature in cells in correctional facilities is close to 37 degrees. Most cells have no cooling facilities, and inmates endure the heat relying on electric fans and a limited supply of iced water. Combined with overcrowding and poor ventilation, the cells have effectively become “steamers” where the heat does not leave even at night.
-
Even so, the Ministry of Justice has provisionally suspended a project, planned at about 1.2 billion won this year, to reinforce cooling facilities in correctional facilities. This project did not even involve installing air conditioners in the cells. It was a minimal measure to install cooling equipment in the corridors of cell blocks for people vulnerable to heat-related illness, such as older persons, persons with disabilities and patients, and of some overcrowded women’s cell blocks. Citing some critical public opinion, the Ministry of Justice has rolled back even the minimum measure to protect the lives and health of inmates.
The situation in immigration detention centers is no different. People held in immigration detention centers live in narrow, enclosed spaces for long periods, yet they are not given sufficient cooling, ice or even cold water. Immigration “protection” is not a punishment, but detainees in these centers are in such harsh conditions that they say, “At least they gave us ice in the detention house.”
A person deprived of liberty cannot use cooling facilities or move elsewhere to escape the heat. The state must therefore take more active measures than ordinary heat countermeasures to protect their lives and health. No one should suffer in the heat because they committed a crime or lost their status of stay. A sentence imposed by a court or a detention order issued for deportation does not include a disposition that says “endure the heat.”
-
Punishment must be carried out fairly, in proportion to the gravity of the crime. If the total amount of suffering that a person must endure differs depending on whether they serve the same sentence in summer, the intensity of punishment is determined by the accident of climate, which is contrary to judicial justice. Even so, the current Act on the Execution of Sentences mentions only “heating” regarding cell facilities and does not specify maintaining an appropriate temperature; there is only an empty “duty to make efforts” in an administrative directive, and there are no quantitative standards at all. The Constitutional Court of Korea has already ruled that a provision of the Carbon Neutrality Act that set no quantitative standards was unconstitutional for providing insufficient protection. Schools operate a cooling temperature standard of 26 to 28 degrees and a periodic inspection system, and workplaces define long hours of work at a perceived temperature of 31 degrees or higher as “heat work” and even provide criminal penalties for violating the duty of preventive measures. Only detention facilities lack even a minimum standard. Even setting a temperature standard and conducting periodic inspections, which are possible immediately without any fiscal expenditure, have not been done, and inmates, who cannot even possess a thermometer, have no way to prove it when their rights are violated.
-
The detention environment in extreme heat is not only a problem for inmates. Correctional officers working in the same space are equally exposed to the risk of heat-related illness. Correctional officers who work wearing protective equipment in humid spaces above 35 degrees must respond to explosively increasing conflicts among inmates and assaults on correctional officers. When a heat-related illness or sudden accident occurs, correctional officers bear the responsibility for management. The problem of the absence of cooling measures and temperature standards is thus shifted onto workers on site. Neglecting heat in detention facilities threatens the lives and health of both inmates and correctional officers.
-
The state declares extreme heat a “national climate disaster,” yet neglects the lives and health of the people it directly detains. Cooling is not a matter of privilege or convenience; it is a matter of life, health and human dignity. Neglecting dangerous conditions in detention facilities on the grounds of budget or public opinion is a betrayal of the state’s duty of protection.
-
Accordingly, civil society human rights organizations held a joint press conference in front of the Cheong Wa Dae Sarangchae at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, condemning the detention of people in extreme heat in detention facilities and urging the adoption of countermeasures.
We request your close attention and coverage.
※ Attachment 1. Speeches
※ Attachment 2. Civil Society Opinion on the Problem of Detention in Extreme Heat in Detention Facilities
August 11, 2026
수용자인권증진모임(공익인권변호사모임 희망을만드는법, 민주사회를 위한 변호사모임 소수자인권위원회·공익인권변론센터, 천주교인권위원회), 국제민주연대, 난민인권센터, 노동인권 실현을 위한 노무사모임, 다산인권센터, 생명안전 시민넷, 울산이주민센터, 이주구금대응네트워크((사)한국알트루사 난민과함께살기, DLG공익인권센터, 공익법단체 두루, 공익법센터 어필, 공익인권법재단 공감, 난민인권센터, 대한불교조계종 사회노동위원회, 소수자난민인권네트워크, 아시아평화를향한이주MAP, 외국인이주·노동운동협의회, 울산이주민센터, 용인이주노동자쉼터, 이주노동자인권·노동권 실현을 위한 대구경북지역연대회의, 이주노동자평등연대, 이주민센터친구, 이주민지원공익센터 감사와 동행, 이주여성인권포럼, 천주교인권위원회, 트랜스보더링랩, 화성외국인보호소방문시민모임 마중), 이주노동자평등연대(건강권 실현을 위한 보건의료단체연합(건강권 실현을 위한 행동하는 간호사회, 건강사회를 위한 약사회, 건강사회를 위한 치과의사회, 노동건강연대, 인도주의실천의사협의회, 참의료실현청년한의사회), 노동당, 노동사회과학연구소, 노동전선, 녹색당, 대한불교조계종사회노동위원회, 성공회용산-혜화나눔의집, 민변노동위원회, 사회진보연대, 이주노동자노동조합(MTU), (사)이주노동희망센터, 이주노동자운동후원회, 이주민센터친구, 인권운동네트워크 바람, 전국민주노동조합총연맹, 전국불안정노동철폐연대, 지구인의정류장, 천주교인권위원회, 필리핀공동체카사마코, 한국비정규노동센터), 인권운동공간 활, 인권운동사랑방, 전북평화와인권연대, 제주평화인권연구소왓, 참여연대, 트랜스보더링랩(Trans-border-ing Lab) (15개 단체)
※ Attachment 1. Speeches
[Speech 1] The Current State of Detention in Extreme Heat and a Critique of the Ministry of Justice Response
Activist Kang Seongjun (Catholic Human Rights Committee)
It was ten years ago, in August 2016. Then, too, the heat continued as it does this year. Two inmates at Busan Prison died one after the other, a day apart. According to the autopsy by the National Forensic Service, the cause of death was presumed to be heatstroke and similar causes. According to the ex officio investigation by the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, the highest temperature at that time was 37.3℃ and tropical nights had continued for 20 days. The investigation cell where they were held measured 5.22㎡ and held three people each, so the floor area per person was only 1.74㎡. This was smaller than 2.58㎡ per person, the standard used to calculate the capacity of correctional facilities. The prison, worried about suicide and other correctional accidents, had not installed an electric fan and had provided only hand fans. It was also enforcing restricted water supply, cutting off tap water three times a day.
Because of the climate crisis, extreme heat and tropical nights persist in summer and strong cold waves occur in winter. Heat waves and cold waves have now become disasters for all citizens. Inmates in correctional facilities are a group even more vulnerable to heat and cold because their physical freedom is restricted. Yet the relevant laws and regulations have no standard for an appropriate indoor temperature, and no provision imposing a duty to maintain an appropriate temperature.
In 2019, after visiting correctional facilities, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea already recommended that a standard for appropriate indoor temperature be established in laws and regulations, along with provisions on measures to maintain it. The Ministry of Justice refused. Its reason was that “if legislation is pursued rashly, various state compensation lawsuits for failing to observe the appropriate indoor temperature may be filed.” In the end, it added only an effort clause to the administrative directive stating that “efforts must be made so that the temperature is maintained appropriately.”
In the age of the climate crisis, the “right to live in a space where an appropriate temperature is maintained” is a matter of life and death for inmates. According to the results of a 2025 freedom of information request by the Catholic Human Rights Committee, as of July 10, the indoor temperature in most correctional facilities exceeded 30℃. In particular, in the morning after a tropical night, the indoor temperature was higher than the outdoor temperature. In some cases, the indoor temperature stayed at or above 30℃ all day, including at night.
Recently, the Ministry of Justice announced that it would install air conditioners in the cell blocks for women, older persons, persons with disabilities, patients and others. The ratio of men to women among inmates is 9 to 1. Even installing them in the cell blocks for older persons, persons with disabilities and patients would not be enough overall. Moreover, those air conditioners were to be installed not inside the cells but in the corridors of the cell blocks. Even so, the Ministry of Justice reportedly reversed the plan, using public opinion as a pretext.
An effort clause cannot solve the problem. In the end, heating and cooling are carried out within the budget at the discretion of the prison. Deaths from heatstroke during the hottest season are bound to recur. Instead of worrying about lawsuits, the Ministry of Justice must establish a standard for appropriate indoor temperature. It must set standards for the maximum summer temperature and the minimum winter temperature and state in law that observing them is the state’s responsibility. It must also equip facilities with heating and cooling equipment that can maintain the appropriate temperature.
[Speech 2] Legal Problems of Detention in Extreme Heat and the Plan to File a Constitutional Complaint
Attorney Kim Donghyeon (Lawyers Group for Public Interest Human Rights, Law for Hope)
Hello. I am Attorney Kim Donghyeon of the Lawyers Group for Public Interest Human Rights, Law for Hope.
Today I would like to speak about what problems detention in extreme heat poses under the Constitution and international human rights law, and about the constitutional complaint we are preparing in response.
The people we are talking about now are convicted prisoners held in prisons and foreign nationals held in immigration detention centers after receiving deportation orders. All of them have their physical freedom restricted by the state. International human rights law calls them persons deprived of liberty, that is, “detainees.”
They were detained because they were sentenced for a crime or because they lost their status of stay and received a deportation order. They are held under a court judgment or a disposition by the immigration office. Of course, why they were detained, that is, whether the detention itself is justified, is also a very important legal issue. Today, however, I would like to focus not on “why” the state detained them but on “how” it must detain them, that is, the problem of detention conditions.
Changes in detention conditions are also the result of a history in which humanity has continually reflected on the limits of punishment and state power. Since modern penal systems replaced harsh corporal punishment with deprivation of liberty, the principle has steadily developed that detention must not go beyond restricting liberty to violate human dignity. Accordingly, guaranteeing sufficient space, natural light, ventilation, sanitation, drinking water and medical care has become established as the minimum condition the state must meet in order to detain people.
As the whole world experiences the climate crisis, the state’s obligations regarding detention conditions in this context are also drawing attention. Detaining people in extreme heat and extreme cold without sufficient protective measures can amount to “inhuman or degrading treatment,” which is regarded as equivalent to torture.
International human rights law provides standards on this. The “United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners” provide that “all accommodation provided for the use of prisoners shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions.” The UN Human Rights Committee has also found that exposing inmates to extreme heat in summer and severe cold in winter violates Article 10, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Recently, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture also pointed out that detention in extreme heat can make detention conditions intolerable and degrading, and urged governments to take immediate and long-term measures to lower cell temperatures and ensure sufficient drinking water.
Courts in various countries have also found detention in extreme heat unlawful. A case worth noting is a recent decision of the Federal Court of Canada. In Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies v. Canada, decided in July 2026, the court found that some cells in a women’s prison had been subject to detention in extreme heat, that as a result the inmates suffered panic attacks, lack of sleep and extreme fatigue, and that the correctional authorities, although long aware of the structural problems of the facility, had not even recorded or preserved the temperatures they measured. The court also found that temporary relief measures such as providing cold water and ice and additional showers could not be regarded as having resolved a problem that had continued for a long time. Accordingly, the court ordered the correctional authorities to record and preserve the temperature measurements of the inmates’ living spaces and to take measures to install air conditioning in the relevant areas, including the cells.
In our case as well, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea has already found that detention in extreme heat may constitute a human rights violation and recommended that a standard for appropriate temperature be established, yet the government has not taken appropriate measures. We therefore intend to file a constitutional complaint to improve the human rights-violating system and practice of detention in extreme heat. Currently, about twenty inmates have expressed their intention to take part in the constitutional complaint. We will compile and organize their conditions of detention in extreme heat and submit the constitutional complaint soon. In this constitutional complaint, we will ask whether the state’s detention of inmates in extreme heat, in overcrowded cells without cooling facilities, without objective temperature standards and effective protective measures, violates human dignity and worth, the right to life, personal liberty, the right to health and the right to equality. Please pay close attention to the constitutional complaint that will soon be filed. Thank you.
[Speech 3] Condemning the Neglect of Heat Conditions in Immigration Detention Centers and Demanding a Fundamental Solution
Activist Tari (Migrant Detention Response Network)
Hello. I am Tari, working together in the Migrant Detention Response Network and the Rainbow Refugee Network. I wonder how the people locked inside immigration detention centers are surviving within the structure of this lethal heat. Once again, we were able to hear the news through Maju, the Citizens’ Group Visiting Hwaseong Immigration Detention Center. At the Hwaseong Immigration Detention Center, two people have fainted from the heat, no ice is provided, and there is no refrigerator. The palm-sized air conditioner that runs only on a limited basis is not enough to cool anyone down. Even in midsummer, they have to sleep on midwinter bedding. I wonder why this is the situation.
But our society considers it strange to have such questions. It also shows no interest in preparing countermeasures. I think the reason is that the people locked in detention centers are not expected to go on living here. Because the centers are meant to be places where people who should leave Korea stay only temporarily, improving conditions there is regarded as contradictory. Although this contradiction does not match the facts, it becomes a device for silencing those held in immigration detention centers. It tells them to leave if they cannot endure it. As I say this, I am so furious that I have become even hotter. Ministry of Justice, take responsibility. The heat does not spare immigration detention centers. But as everyone knows, the consequences of heat are unequal.
We demand improvements to the conditions in immigration detention centers. This is because there are, plainly, people enduring there. Who can justify, and how, that people detained because their period of stay has expired must endure such a threat to survival? And we demand this clearly: improving this facility is not for the purpose of keeping this facility in operation. Improving the facility is not for the facility. It is for the people locked inside it. What is for those people is to let them live now, and we improve it because the facility is currently obstructing and blocking those people from living freely.
Telling people to endure this heat locked in silence breaks their will to think, speak and demand in order to be free. It makes it hard for them to find the strength to confront the irresponsibility of the Korean government that tells them to accept this unjust treatment, the strength to resist the rigid borders that create climate injustice, and the strength to finally go out of this place and live as themselves. Therefore, we demand of the government: include immigration detention centers in heat countermeasures. End detention. Guarantee the right of residence of undocumented migrants and refugees. Prepare measures so that everyone can live like a human being right now. Let us fight together for alternatives to migrant detention. Struggle!
[Speech 4] Demanding Legislation of Standards for Heat Response in Detention Facilities
Attorney Kim Byeongmin (Minority Rights Committee, Lawyers for a Democratic Society)
Once again this summer, heat wave warnings have been issued without fail. When it is hot, we open a window, look for iced water and step into the shade. But people in detention facilities have no such options. It is none other than the state that removed those options. If it is the state that locked them up, it is also the state that must be responsible for the temperature inside. A guilty verdict restricts physical freedom only; it gives no right to take away even the environment in which a person regulates body temperature. Extreme heat is a punishment that exists in no law, and in severe cases it can become torture. We therefore make the following demands of the correctional authorities.
First, state the appropriate temperature and stage-by-stage heat response standards in laws and regulations. The Ministry of Justice directive stipulates only a duty to make efforts for the warden to adjust the temperature. But a duty to make efforts without a standard is not a countermeasure; it is an exemption from responsibility and mere show. Even in a contract between private parties, such an abstract duty-to-make-efforts clause is regarded as meaningless, so it is almost embarrassing that this is an official regulation of the Republic of Korea. Without a standard, heat response is left entirely to the discretion of each detention institution and the goodwill of individual staff. Even for the same prison sentence, the experience differs greatly depending on the accident of when and in which facility a person is held. In addition, inmates cannot know what they can demand and staff cannot know what they must do by when, so the possibility of legitimate expectation disappears. In such a situation, temperature management measures are regarded as “nice to have” and are pushed down the priority list. If no standard is set, there is no yardstick for judging unlawfulness even when an accident occurs. A standard is a limit on public power, but it is also a safeguard that lets officials feel reassured that “the official followed the guidelines.” We should trust standards, not the goodwill of the correctional authorities. Goodwill without a standard disappears when the person in charge changes, retreats when the budget shrinks, and is forgotten when attention fades. California in the United States has already established temperature-based standards. There is no reason we cannot do so. Quantitative standards have already been set in industrial settings and schools. Why is it that only in detention facilities it supposedly cannot be done?
Second, resume the suspended project to reinforce cooling facilities in correctional facilities. The government provisionally suspended this project citing some critical public opinion. But what was suspended is not construction; it is the state’s duty of protection. If the laws and regulations had contained a standard, the project could not have been suspended merely because of some public opinion. Preparing heat countermeasures is not a benevolent welfare benefit; it is a minimum safety measure. Theoretically, practically and historically, guaranteeing the human rights of inmates never conflicts with guaranteeing the human rights of other citizens. Does the government not know this well? The Ministry of Justice must first install cooling facilities in vulnerable and overcrowded cell blocks and, in the medium to long term, establish annual facility improvement plans and budget plans so that all cells can maintain an appropriate temperature.
Third, measure, record and disclose temperature and humidity. Even now, inmates do not know what the temperature of their room is. Because almost no cells have a thermo-hygrometer and personal possession of one is also restricted, they cannot check what conditions they are in, and even if their rights are violated, they have no way to prove it. Measurement is the premise of a standard. However elaborate the response stages may be, if the indoor temperature is not measured, the standard will not work and will in the end revert to the facility head’s own impression. What is not measured is not managed, and what is not recorded is not anyone’s responsibility. It also has to change that even basic data can be partly confirmed only through individual freedom of information requests. Can inmates trust temperature data when there are no disclosed standards and no way to know how it was measured? Discretion that is not verified is discretion that is not controlled. The measurement work itself does not require excessive cost either. Is it an excessive demand in the Republic of Korea in 2026 to install thermo-hygrometers that inmates can check themselves, and to set standard measurement points and intervals and keep records?
The temperature of detention facilities is not a favor. It is the very content of the duty to protect human rights, which follows logically from the fact that the state itself detained people. Even at this moment, someone is sitting in heat of which they do not even know the temperature. In such a situation, anyone would feel that they are not being treated fairly. We can no longer pretend not to know about the problem of heat in these detention institutions, which anyone can feel. Even if it cannot be solved all at once, a standard must be set first. Please give us an answer before this summer ends. Thank you for listening.
※ Attachment 2. Civil Society Opinion on the Problem of Detention in Extreme Heat in Detention Facilities
Civil Society Opinion on the Problem of Detention in Extreme Heat in Detention Facilities
To: Presidential Office of Public Communication, Cheong Wa Dae
Cc: Minister of Justice
From: Inmate Human Rights Promotion Group [Lawyers Group for Public Interest Human Rights, Law for Hope; Minority Rights Committee and Public Interest Human Rights Advocacy Center, Lawyers for a Democratic Society; Catholic Human Rights Committee]
Inquiries: Attorney Kim Donghyeon (Lawyers Group for Public Interest Human Rights, Law for Hope) 010-2762-8952
Date: August 11, 2026
- Appropriate temperature standards and stage-by-stage protective measures for extreme heat in detention facilities must be stated in laws and regulations.
The current Act on the Execution of Sentences and the Treatment of Inmates provides only for heating facilities in cell equipment and does not set an appropriate summer temperature for cells or the measures the state must take during extreme heat. The revised Ministry of Justice directive likewise imposes on the head of a correctional facility only a duty to make efforts to keep the temperature appropriate, and offers no standard on what the appropriate temperature is or what measures must be taken when a certain temperature is exceeded. The situation is no different for immigration detention centers.
A person deprived of liberty cannot use cooling facilities on their own or move elsewhere to escape the heat. Keeping the temperature of detention facilities appropriate is therefore not a matter of providing convenience or improving treatment; it is a minimum duty to protect the lives and health of people the state itself has detained. In particular, older persons, persons with disabilities, pregnant women, minors, persons with cardiovascular, respiratory or kidney disease, and persons taking medication that affects body temperature regulation are more vulnerable to heat and need separate protection standards.
The government must state the appropriate summer temperature and maximum permissible temperature of detention facilities in the Act on the Execution of Sentences and the Treatment of Inmates, the Immigration Act and other related laws and regulations, and establish heat response standards that are issued in stages according to indoor temperature and humidity.
For reference, the California correctional authorities, under a federal court order, distinguish response stages according to the outdoor temperature and the indoor temperature of the cell blocks where heat-vulnerable inmates live. When the outdoor temperature reaches 90℉ (about 32.2℃), outdoor activity of vulnerable inmates is restricted, and when the indoor temperature of the relevant cell block reaches 90℉, cooling and hydration measures such as cold water, misting and cold showers, and health monitoring are strengthened. When the indoor temperature reaches 95℉ (35℃), medical staff check and record the condition of vulnerable inmates at least every two hours and, if there are abnormal symptoms, take additional cooling measures or transfer them to a treatment area. The trigger criteria and main measures of this plan are made public through the correctional authorities’ website and official budget documents. A system in which protective measures are carried out according to objective temperature standards and their content is made public can be established immediately in Korea as well.
- The project to reinforce cooling facilities in correctional facilities must be resumed immediately and its scope expanded.
The government must immediately resume the project to reinforce cooling facilities in correctional facilities, which it provisionally suspended citing some critical public opinion.
Installing cooling equipment in the corridors of cell blocks for people vulnerable to heat-related illness, such as older persons, persons with disabilities and patients, and of overcrowded women’s cell blocks, is not a privilege but a minimum safety measure to protect life and health.
In the short term, the government must first install cooling facilities in vulnerable and overcrowded cell blocks and, in the medium to long term, establish facility improvement plans and budget plans so that an appropriate temperature can be maintained in all cells.
- Access to temperature and humidity information must be guaranteed for all persons deprived of liberty.
Temperature and humidity are basic information for judging the safety of detention facilities and the health of inmates. It is hard to accept the state claiming that it manages facilities appropriately while not informing detainees of the temperature and humidity. Yet inmates currently cannot know exactly what the temperature and humidity of the cell where they are held are.
This is because almost no cells have a thermo-hygrometer. Possession of a thermo-hygrometer by individual inmates is also restricted. Inmates therefore cannot check what conditions they are in, and even if their lives and health are harmed by extreme heat, it is difficult for them to prove it.
The government must therefore install thermo-hygrometers that inmates can check themselves in all cells and protective rooms. It must also designate standard areas, record the measurements and make them public.
- The content and implementation results of heat response plans for correctional facilities and immigration detention centers must be disclosed.
What heat response plans the government holds, and how those plans are actually carried out at each facility, are not sufficiently disclosed to detainees and their families, let alone to civil society. Even basic data such as temperature and humidity by facility, the status of cooling equipment installation and the incidence of heat-related illness can be confirmed only to a limited extent through individual freedom of information requests, and a considerable amount is withheld.
Extreme heat recurs every year and its intensity is becoming more severe. For a risk that occurs repeatedly, we must not rely only on undisclosed guidelines or the arbitrary judgment of the head of a correctional facility. The government must immediately disclose the heat response plans applied to correctional facilities and immigration detention centers. When a heat response stage is issued, each facility must record the time of issuance, the scope of application, the measures taken and the time of termination. The Ministry of Justice and related ministries must compile these and disclose them regularly during the heat period and, after the heat ends, publish an evaluation report containing the response results by facility, problems and improvement plans.
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) pointed out that when extreme heat is combined with inadequate facilities and overcrowding, it can make detention conditions intolerable and even degrading, and stressed that both immediate relief measures and long-term measures are needed, together with specific measures to reduce high temperatures inside cells and ensure access to sufficient drinking water. The government, too, must recognize its response to extreme heat in detention facilities as the fulfillment of the state’s duty to protect human rights, not as a temporary or discretionary measure, and must transparently disclose its plans and results.