CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM office was locked. The inspection revealed that two officials of the centre had been trained to provide first aid. However, the staff rosters do not ensure constant presence of an official with first aid training. The Chancellor made the following recommendations to the Director General of the PBGB: (1) assess the location of first aid equipment in the centre and ensure that the equipment is quickly available in case of an incident occurring in the accommodation section; (2) organise first aid training for more officials, so as to ensure constant presence of an official with first aid training in the centre. The PBGB replied that first aid equipment and the equipment for artificial respiration is available in all the accommodation sections. First aid training for officials will be organised at the first opportunity. (2) The second range of issues verified during the inspection concerned compliance with the Chancellor’s recommendations of 29 June 2009 and 10 November 2009 with regard to the application of security measures and documenting of the relevant cases. First, the Chancellor dealt with the issue of establishing a register for security measures. In 2009, the Chancellor recommended that the centre should establish a general register for recording cases of application of security measures, including all the incidents of the application of the security measures, the type of the measure applied, the justification for its use, the period of application, notes concerning consultation with a doctor and occurrence of any damage to the health. The PBGB explained that information on the period and circumstances of application of security measures is included in the PBGB information system, but this does not include a possibility to make detailed statistical queries on the use of the measures. Examination of the database during the inspection visit revealed that the information system only enabled searching information on the application of security measures separately in respect of each particular person. The information system does not enable aggregate searches on security measures applied during a certain period (including the overall number and types of security measures applied) or on the above-mentioned data which must be recorded in the register of security measures. Due to the failure to obtain the relevant aggregate statement during the inspection, it was not possible to have a overview of all the instances of application of security measures during the inspected period, and therefore it was also not possible to obtain an exhaustive overview of whether other recommendations of the Chancellor in connection with the general principles of the application of security measures (purposefulness of the measure, principle of proportionality, duty of reasoning) and guarantees for the prevention and detection of ill-treatment had been complied with. On this basis, the Chancellor repeated his recommendation to the Director General of the PBGB to ensure that all instances of the application of security measures are recorded in an aggregate manner, including the type of a measure, duration and reason of its application, the exact beginning and end of the application, information concerning consultation with a doctor and occurrence of any damage to health. The PBGB replied that aggregate registration of the application of security measures (with a possibility of making aggregate queries in the information system) was not possible due to the lack of resources. Information on the period and circumstances of the use of security measures is recorded in the database on aliens staying or having stayed in Estonia without a legal basis. All the decisions on the application of security measures are preserved in the personal file of each person subject to expulsion, and access to the data can be obtained. Secondly, the Chancellor verified the practice of the expulsion centre in connection with the placement of persons in a separate locked room as a security measure for purposes of health monitoring upon admission to the centre, as well as compliance with the duty of reasoning of the application of security measures. In 2009, the Chancellor recommended that, due to the absence of a relevant legal basis, the practice of application of security measures whereby all the persons admitted to the centre are placed in a separate locked room as a security measure, regardless of the existence of a reason to suspect the presence of an infectious disease that could pose a risk by spreading through ordinary contact with other persons. 31