CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM Different informational material is always taken to the inspected places of detention with the aim to help people whose liberty has been restricted better understand their fundamental rights and freedoms and effectively make use of different complaint mechanisms. The main type of information material distributed at places of detention includes a booklet explaining the competences of the Chancellor of Justice together with a complaint form, a leaflet containing information about state legal aid and a brochure on patient rights. During the inspection visits, it is also always assessed how the recommendations and proposals made by international organisations (e.g. the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment − CPT) have been implemented. In 2010, the Chancellor of Justice informed the CPT about the results of compliance with the recommendations made in its reports addressed to Estonia. Standards concerning conditions of detention, use of the means of restraint, training, etc, developed by international organisations (both the Council of Europe and United Nations bodies) are an important yardstick in addition to national norms against which the Chancellor of Justice assesses the legality and justification of the relevant regulations and practice. Also the Supreme Court has noted that the Council of Europe “[...] “European prison rules”, although issued as recommendations and thus legally non-binding, should be nevertheless seen as setting goals and principles which should be aimed at and observed as far as possible when interpreting and implementing Estonian legislation. [...] [A] prison is obliged to explain and prove why it is not possible to follow the goals set by the European Prison Rules. In addition, the Chamber notes that it was also pertinent for the appellant in cassation to refer to the CPT standards − although the CPT reports contain only non-binding recommendations (Article 10 para 1 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), they add weight to the provisions of the European Prison Rules.” As a result of the Chancellor’s inspection visits, a summary is compiled, containing recommendations and proposals to the inspected establishment and other relevant authorities. Summaries of inspection visits are also published on the Chancellor of Justice website immediately after sending them to the addressees. Data protection requirements are observed when publishing the summaries (i.e. no personal data is disclosed, etc). A short abstract of a summary of an inspection visit is also translated into English.10 In 2010, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the findings contained in the summary reports of the Chancellor of Justice inspection visits may be relied on in administrative court proceedings if no other possibilities for proving the conditions of detention or other circumstances relating to a place of detention exist.11 In addition to inspection visits, other activities for preventing ill-treatment have been carried out with the aim to raise awareness of the essence of ill-treatment and the need to fight it among staff and individuals held in the places of detention, as well as among the wider public. In 2010, the following articles and other writings on problems in places of detention, ill-treatment and/or the respective competence of the Chancellor of Justice were published by advisers to the Chancellor: – M. Amos. Psühhiaatrilise teenuse pakkumine lastele on ebapiisav. [Provision of psychiatric services to children is insufficient] – Meditsiiniuudised 01.06.2010; – M. Amos. EIK hinnangust psühhiaatriahaiglas kinnipidamisest. [On the assessment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning detention in psychiatric hospitals] – Meditsiiniuudised 02.06.2010;   10 11 The Supreme Court Administrative Law Chamber judgment of 7 April 2010, No 3-3-1-5-10, para 19. Summaries of the inspection visits are available online: http://www.oiguskantsler.ee/?menuID=284. Available online: http://www.oiguskantsler.ee/?menuID=331. The Supreme Court Administrative Law Chamber judgment of 21 April 2010, No 3-3-1-14-10, para 11: “If providing proof of the conditions of detention alleged in a complaint is not possible after reasonable efforts have been taken, or proving the existence or absence of certain conditions is impossible post-factum, the Administrative Law Chamber believes it would be pertinent to rely on the reports of inspection visits to the particular places of detention drawn up within the framework of the above Conventions [i.e. the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol; as well as the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment − explanation added] to assess the credibility of the claims made by the parties to the proceedings."