CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM The PBGB replied that it would ensure that the decisions on the use of handcuffs in respect of persons during the stay outside the centre would be made in compliance with the principle of discretion and duty of reasoning. A training course for the officials of the centre on how to draw up documents properly would be organised. (4) Fourth, the inspection visit revealed that the files of persons subject to expulsion did not contain a record of the use of restraining measures or special equipment during the execution of the expulsion. The Chancellor recommended to the Director General of the PBGB to amend the guidelines for escorting detained persons by establishing the requirement for drawing up an escort plan also in case of cross-border escort and to ensure that the use of special equipment, the duration of their use and other details of the escort are recorded in the escort plan, in order to ensure better verification of the use of special equipment. The PBGB replied that in case of cross-border escort, special equipment is normally not used. If any special equipment is used, the use is recorded in the form of a report. (5) Fifth, the Chancellor dealt with the issue of prohibited items in the expulsion centre. More specifically, the inspection revealed that persons detained in the centre were deprived of religious paraphernalia made of precious metals. Examination of personal files also showed that a marriage ring had been taken from a person but was later returned upon request. Under § 2621 (2) clause 4 of the Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act, internal rules of an expulsion centre shall provide for the list of personal effects which persons to be expelled may hold in the expulsion centre. § 31(1) of the internal rules states that persons detained in the expulsion centre are prohibited to possess items which are not explicitly allowed by the internal rules. According to § 32(1) of the internal rules, persons detained in the expulsion centre are allowed to possess a reasonable quantity of personal clothes, footwear and hygiene articles, tobacco products carrying a tax seal, books, magazines and newspapers, stationery and documents which are not subject to being deposited. Thus, restrictions on the personal effects of detainees in the centre were established by internal rules, containing an exhaustive list of items which persons are allowed to possess. The Chancellor explained that under § 32(2) of the Constitution everyone has the right to freely possess, use, and dispose of his or her property; restrictions shall be provided by law. Thus, the restrictions on the possession, use and disposal of property must be established by an Act. The restrictions must also be in conformity with the Constitution (i.e. the restrictions should be for a legitimate purpose and conform to the principle of proportionality). Therefore, each restriction must be justified in view of the aim it seeks to achieve. In view of this, a constitutionally conforming result would rather be achieved by establishing a list of prohibited items (and not a list of items which are allowed). On this basis, the Chancellor reached the conclusion that the above regulation with restrictions on the use of items is highly problematic in the light of the Constitution. The Chancellor pointed out that restrictions on the use of religious paraphernalia constitute an interference in the exercise of the freedom of religion (§ 40 of the Constitution). Taking away a marriage ring constitutes interference with the general personality rights and the sphere of privacy under § 19 and § 26 of the Constitution. The Chancellor recommended to the Director General of the PBGB to ensure that persons in the centre can use items of high personal value (marriage ring, religious paraphernalia) even when these are made of precious materials. The Chancellor also recommended to the Minister of Internal Affairs to analyse the restrictions on the possession and use of items established by the Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act and internal rules of the expulsion centre, taking into account the above explanations, and initiate amendment of the respective legislation to bring them into conformity with the Constitution. 34