CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM The reception centre admitted that the budget of 2010 did not contain any resources for training and therefore the staff did not participate in any training events. Ninth, during the inspection visit asylum seekers raised the issue that the computer did not have a microphone and therefore communication through the computer was hindered. The Chancellor recommended to the reception centre to install a microphone in the computer. The reception centre replied that it had installed a functioning microphone to the computer. Tenth, the inspection visit revealed that the reception centre did not have a first-aid chest containing standard supplies. The housekeeping room had a first-aid kit the content of which the staff of the centre supplemented according to need, but it was not a first-aid kit containing standard supplies. The Chancellor recommended to the reception centre to place in the accommodation area of the centre a first-aid chest containing standard supplies, mark the location of first-aid equipment, post visibly the telephone numbers for calling assistance and place visibly the data of the staff who are proficient to provide first aid. In view of the language barrier of asylum seekers, illustrating the information with universally understandable symbols should also be considered. The reception centre replied that a first-aid chest had been placed in a clearly visible location and the social worker shows it to all the persons arriving in the centre. In conclusion, it was found that the provision of necessary services by the reception centre was hindered due to the centre’s very limited budget which has been cut even further in the recent years. In addition, the isolated location of the centre also posed an obstacle to proper provision of services. The Chancellor recommended to the Minister of Social Affairs to ensure resources for the reception centre for proper provision of the required services and analyse obstacles to the provision of services arising from the centre’s location and its adverse effect to the well-being and health of the asylum applicants. The Minister of Social Affairs replied that in 2010 an initial analysis was made, mapping the situation in the reception centre, analysing the connection between its location and current situation, asking feedback from the centre’s main cooperation partners, and making preliminary proposals for future organisation of the work of the centre. The relevant financial and legal analysis is being carried out. At the time of the reply, the Ministry of Social Affairs had not yet made a decision concerning the proposals but presumably the decisions with regard to the location of the reception centre would be made in the first half of 2011. In addition, the Chancellor dealt with problems concerning support established by legislation for persons afforded international protection upon taking up residence in a local government. 3. Inspection visit to the premises of the Police and Border Guard Board The inspection revealed that the security guard service in the accommodation facility of asylum seekers (Vilmsi Street 59) was provided by the security company G4S Estonia during off-hour periods. In connection with this, an issue arose whether the authority of the security guards providing the service was clearly defined and their training sufficient for contact with asylum seekers. The inspection revealed that the contract concluded with G4S mainly regulated the duties of the guard service provider in connection with responding to external attacks. Although the service provider was obliged to ensure order and security on the guarded premises, the contract did not specify the duties and authority of security staff in connection with maintaining order and security in the accommodation facility. Although the office building at Vilmsi Street 59 also houses the accommodation facility for asylum seekers in addition to usual offices, specific duties and authority of the security staff in respect of asylum seekers had not been regulated; only a general regulation valid for the whole office building had been established. 46