CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM VI. DEFENCE FORCES 1. General outline During the reporting period, there were nine units of the Defence Forces in Estonia where persons were performing their conscript service obligation during the periods established by the Minister of Defence. All the units where conscript service is performed fall under the supervision of the Chancellor of Justice as the national preventive mechanism. During the reporting period, the Chancellor carried out four inspection visits to units of the Defence Forces: on 28 April 2010 to the Headquarters and Signal Battalion (Inspection visit to the Headquarters and Signal Battalion, case No 7-7/100921), on 1 June 2010 to the Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Squadron (Inspection visit to the MCM Squadron, case No 7-7/100564), on 3 September 2010 to the Pioneer Battalion (Inspection visit to the Pioneer Battalion, case No 7-7/101156) and on 13 October 2010 to the Air Defence Battalion (Inspection visit to the Air Defence Battalion, case No 7-7/101412). All the inspection visits were announced visits, i.e. carried out with an advance notice. No experts were involved in the visits. The Chancellor’s choice of the inspected establishments was based first and foremost on the need to conduct an inspection visit at least once every three years to all the units of the Defence Forces dealing with conscript training. The Chancellor scheduled the inspection visits to take place around the time when new conscripts first arrived in the units. In the course of inspection visits during the reporting year, the Chancellor did not find any general or recurring problems (i.e. problems occurring in all the units). 2. Headquarters and Signal Battalion The Chancellor’s first inspection visit was to the Headquarters and Signal Battalion, which is a unit subordinate to the Commander of the Defence Forces. During the inspection of the unit, the Chancellor examined different personnel documents (including disciplinary proceedings documents). The analysis of the documents showed that disciplinary proceedings in the unit were carried out in compliance with the requirements of the legislation and evidence was collected to the extent necessary for making reasoned decisions. However, the Chancellor pointed out that even though under clause 191 of the Government Regulation No 388 of 17 December 1999 “Disciplinary regulations of the Defence Forces” the persons conducting a disciplinary investigation may request the person under investigation to provide explanation of the circumstances of disciplinary offences, and refusal to provide the explanation without good reason or knowingly providing false information is subject to disciplinary punishment, the unit should consider not obliging the persons under investigation to provide statements. This would be primarily due to the fact that according to the Chancellor’s assessment clause 191 of the regulations, to the extent that it allows obliging persons under investigation to provide statements and punishing them in case of refusal or provision of false information, is in conflict with the Constitution. The Chancellor also submitted a request for information to the Minister of Defence to obtain information for assessing the legality of clause 191 of the disciplinary regulations of the Defence Forces. In his request, the Chancellor also presented a preliminary assessment of this provision, noting that it may be in conflict with the prohibition under § 22(3) of the Constitution to compel a person to testify against himself or herself or against those closest to him or her. The Minister of Defence in his reply agreed with the Chancellor’s opinion that clause 191 of the disciplinary regulations may be contrary to the Estonian Constitution. The Minister explained that the Draft 49