Detention is the maximum sanction against personal freedom. A detainee who thinks that an adverse decision made by the detaining authority exceeds the scope necessary for achieving the purpose of detention, or necessary for maintaining order at the place of detention, thereby unlawfully jeopardizing his/her constitutionally protected rights, should be permitted to bring an action in court for judicial remedy. Article 6 of the Detention Act and Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Rules for the same Act, disallowing a detainee to bring action in court for remedies, was declared by Interpretation No. 653 of this Court as contrary to the intention of Article 16 of the Constitution protecting the people’s right of litigation, and this Court mandated the government to study and to revise the Detention Act and relevant regulations within two years from the date of publication of the said Interpretation in accordance with the intention of the said Interpretation. However, the two year deadline has not been observed, and the laws are not yet revised. In order to protect the right of litigation for a detainee disagreeing with the treatment or disciplinary action taken by a detention house, before the revision of the aforementioned laws, a detainee who contests decisions made by the complaint system of the detention house shall be permitted to invoke the quasi-motion provisions of Article 416 of the Criminal Procedural Act to seek remedies from the court ordering the detention. Interpretation No. 653 of this Court shall be supplemented accordingly.