CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM The PBGB replied that it supports the proposal to amend the internal rules of the centre, so as to allow the detainees to possess items of high personal value. A proposal for amending the internal rules of the centre would be submitted to the Minister of Internal Affairs. (6) As a sixth range of issues, the Chancellor of Justice dealt with issues concerning visits. In 2007, the Chancellor made a recommendation to amend the provisions regulating visits, so as to allow visits also during weekends (outside the working hours) and for longer than 0.5 hours at a time. Examination of the files showed that visits longer than 0.5 hours had been allowed (sometimes visits lasted for several hours) but the visits still took place only during the periods established in the internal rules. The Chancellor repeated his recommendation to enable having visits outside the working hours, in particular if persons having a family in Estonia are detained in the centre. The Chancellor also recommended to the Minister of Internal Affairs to analyse the regulation in the internal rules of the centre and establish a more flexible framework for arranging visits, also allowing for visits during weekends when necessary. Secondly, the Chancellor assessed the practice of the centre which prohibits persons to be expelled to have visits from persons with a previous conviction. For example, during the follow-up visit of 30 September 2009 it was found that a person was prohibited to have a visit with their spouse because the spouse had a criminal record. The Chancellor explained that allowing of visits may be necessary to ensure a person’s fundamental right to the inviolability of family and private life. Allowing of visits is also an important guarantee for the prevention and detection of ill-treatment. As the officials of the centre verify data of the persons coming for a visit, it is possible, in case the data give reason to suspect the aims of the visitor, to take necessary alternative measures for avoiding the relevant risk, instead of establishing a blanket ban on visits for certain categories of persons. The law also provides for a possibility to search the personal effects of a visitor if necessary, and the visit also takes place in the presence of a migration supervision official. With the help of relevant measures, it is possible to monitor the behaviour of visitors and thus a total ban on visits could be unjustified as being disproportionate. The Chancellor noted that on 24 December 2010 an amendment to § 2610 of the Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act entered into force, establishing in subsection 7 the cases when persons to be expelled are not allowed to have a visit with another person. The Chancellor doubts that establishment of imperative grounds for the prohibition of a visit by an Act is compatible with § 26 of the Constitution. On this basis, the Chancellor reached the conclusion that the practice of the centre which prohibits visits with persons having a criminal record is contrary to the version of the Act valid until 24 December 2010 and to the Constitution. Therefore, the Chancellor recommended to the Director General of the PBGB to enable visits in conformity with the law and the Constitution. The Chancellor also recommended to the Minister of Internal Affairs to analyse constitutionality of § 2610(7) of the Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act. Another issue which arose concerned the fact that a request for a visit must be submitted in advance. If a person comes for a visit without a prior request, no visit is allowed on the same day (except a visit with a lawyer), as the request is processed and the person is notified when they can come for a visit. Based on the principle of good administration, the Chancellor recommended to the Director General of the PBGB to process requests for a visit submitted on the spot in an expedited manner. During the inspection, the residents of the centre also pointed out that in certain cases the procedure for visits was very strict. The persons claimed that visits had been interrupted, for example, for a reason that a person wished to hold the hand of their visiting spouse. The Chancellor of Justice recommended to the Director General of the PBGB to ensure that no excessive security measures are applied during visits and that visits are not interrupted for formal reasons. 35