CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM The examination of personal files during the inspection visit revealed that in the majority of the cases no decision on the use of a security measure for purposes of assessment of an individual’s health had been drawn up. On several occasions, the reason given for the use of a security measures for purposes of health assessment was a mere statement that no information about the person’s health existed or it was necessary to avoid the risk of infection of other residents of the centre, without providing any factual reasoning. Thus, in certain cases, a person had been placed in a separate locked room for purposes of health assessment merely on the basis of a decision for the application of a security measure. In addition, the duty of reasoning to which the Chancellor had repeatedly drawn attention during his previous inspection visits had not been complied with. The Chancellor repeated his recommendation to the Director General of the PBGB to comply with the duty of reasoning in the decisions for the application of a security measure and to record all the circumstances on the basis of which a decision is made. The PBGB replied that it would take into consideration the recommendation to comply with the duty of reasoning in decisions for the application of security measures and record in the decision all the circumstances on the basis of which a security measure is applied. Third, the Chancellor verified compliance with his recommendations made in 2009 in connection with medical supervision of the application of security measures (including restraining measures) and documenting of such supervision. The inspection revealed that job descriptions of officials of the centre were being revised in connection with the establishment of the new joint PBGB and job descriptions of security service staff had not yet been approved. Thus, the duty of supervision was not clearly established in internal documents of the institution. Also, decisions on the use of security measures were not registered in an aggregated manner, including data concerning consultation with a doctor. On this basis, it was not possible during the inspection to verify exhaustively the implementation of the relevant recommendations in practice. In view of the reply by the PBGB and the explanations given by the representatives of the centre during the inspection, the Chancellor pointed out that according to the current organisation of work immediate performance of a medical examination was not ensured in case of application of security measures, and notification took place only on the following day. Consultation with a psychologist or psychiatrist only took place at the request of the person. On this basis, the Chancellor repeated his recommendation to the Director General of the PBGB to present a detailed plan for implementing the recommendations and establish explicitly in internal guidelines or job descriptions the relevant duties concerning the involvement of medical staff. The Chancellor also repeated his recommendation to supplement the form of a decision for the application of security measures, so as to indicate on the form whether and when a medical staff of the centre and a psychiatrist examined a person, assessed his or her condition, or when consultation by telephone took place. The PBGB replied that order No 75 of 1 January 2010 of the Director General of the PBGB “Approval of the forms and the procedure for filling out the forms used in the expulsion centre of the migration supervision bureau of the Citizenship and Migration Department of the Police and Border Guard Board” would be amended, so that in case of consultation with medical staff upon the application of security measures the decision on the use of security measures would contain a report on a separate page, indicating whether and when a health service provider of the centre has examined the person, assessed their situation or when consultation by telephone took place and what was the result of the consultation. Fourthly, compliance with the Chancellor’s recommendations made in 2009 in connection with the duty of monitoring of a person in case of application of restraining measures was verified during the inspection. 32 Based on a random examination of personal files during the inspection no cases were found where a restraining measure in the form of placement in a separate locked room was used in respect of a person. In reply to the Chancellor’s request for information, the PBGB explained that in case of use of restraining measures the centre would ensure direct and constant monitoring of a person and verification of their