CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM As the state has not established any guidelines or requirements for the providers of the rehabilitation service, it is not possible to verify the quality of the rehabilitation service provided to children with addiction problems. Due to the absence of service guidelines and a supervisory mechanism no state supervision over the existing service providers has been carried out. Also, no comprehensive external assessment of the existing institutions has taken place. Thus, it is not possible to be convinced about the quality and efficiency of the service offered by the existing service providers. The Chancellor has repeatedly drawn attention to this problem, most recently in his report No 1 to the Riigikogu, “The availability of the rehabilitation service for children with addiction problems”. At the joint meeting of the Riigikogu legal affairs committee and the social affairs committee on 10 December 2009 where the Chancellor’s report was discussed both committees asked the Ministry of Social Affairs to analyse in the first quarter of 2010 what the justified restrictions of fundamental rights in the rehabilitation of children with addiction problems could be, and draw up in the first half of 2010 draft legislation regulating the substance of the rehabilitation service and establishing the relevant financing model and submit the draft to the Riigikogu before the end of the spring session of 2010. However, the Ministry of Social Affairs had not drawn up the draft legislation regulating the provision of rehabilitation services to children with addiction problems by the end of 2010. Thus, the providers of rehabilitation services still have to operate in a non-existing legal environment. The following part contains a brief overview of other shortcomings not mentioned above but found during the inspection visit. The inspection revealed that Jõhvi Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre is a closed establishment from which children are not allowed to leave at will. The examination of children’s files revealed that in most cases there was no child’s written consent for the stay in a closed rehabilitation establishment. The majority of children with whom the Chancellor and his advisers talked also claimed that they had not given a written informed consent to stay in the establishment for the provision of the service and for the restriction of their freedom. The Chancellor reached the conclusion that according to the legal regulation valid at the time of the inspection visit Jõhvi Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre did not have a legal basis for restricting the freedom of children against their will. Thus, a child has to give a written informed consent for receiving the rehabilitation service and restricting their freedom. An informed consent presumes that prior to giving their consent a child has been explained, taking into account the child’s age and level of development, which rules and restrictions of the rights apply in the rehabilitation centre, what is the duration of stay in the establishment and what are the conditions for living and studying in the establishment. The child should also be notified of the possibility to withdraw their consent.36 On this basis, the Chancellor recommended to the head of Jõhvi Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre to ensure that all the children referred to the centre to receive the rehabilitation service are familiarised with the conditions for the stay and the rules and restrictions applicable in the centre, and based on this provide a written informed consent for stay for the provision of the service. The Chancellor recommended to the National Institute for Health Development to verify regularly that all the children referred to the rehabilitation service provider have given their written informed consent for receiving the treatment and signed an agreement to comply with the rules and conditions applicable in the treatment and rehabilitation centre, as required by the contract for the use of national budgetary allocations concluded with Jõhvi Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre. Interviews with children as well as staff in the centre showed that the staff were inspecting the content of children’s correspondence. Children could not send letter though the Internet but could read letters sent to them. At the same time, a staff member of the centre was standing by the child and reading the letters sent to the child. The interviewed children had not sent or received many letters by post but allegedly a staff member also read letters sent on paper. An incoming letter was opened in the presence of a child, the staff member read the letter and then decided whether to give it to the child or not. 68 36 About the informed consent, see also § 766 of the Law of Obligations Act and § 12 of the Personal Data Protection Act.