CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM Fourth, the issue of justification of restrictions established by the internal rules of the reception centre arose during the inspection visit. Under § 5(2) of the internal rules, minors are not allowed to visit the asylum seekers (except an asylum seeker’s children) and under § 5(4) the head of the centre may prohibit visits if necessary. The Chancellor pointed out that such restrictions interfere with fundamental rights of persons. The Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens does not contain a basis for establishing such restrictions. On this basis, the Chancellor recommended that the reception centre should amend § 5(2) and § 5(4) of the internal rules, so as to bring them in line with the Act and the Constitution. The reception centre replied that amendments to the internal rules would be made and the above provisions would be removed from the rules. Fifth, it was found that the reception centre did not register applications and other enquiries submitted by persons. The Chancellor recommended to the reception centre to ensure registration of applications and enquiries by persons and replying to them. The reception centre promised to ensure registration of applications and enquiries by persons. Sixth, ensuring of security in the reception centre was verified. Manned guarding in the reception centre stopped on 1 July 2009 as the budgetary resources of the centre were not sufficient for providing the guard service. The Chancellor recommended to the reception centre to guarantee manned guarding to ensure security in the centre. The primary consideration should be the presence of a guard at night, during weekends and public holidays when the staff are not present in the centre. The reception centre replied that since 1 February 2011 the centre has manned guarding. The service is provided by AS Securitas. Working hours of the guards are 18.00−06.00 on weekdays; during rest days and holidays a guard is present 24 hours. Seventh, it was assessed how the reception centre has arranged interpreting in communicating with asylum seekers (in addition to interpreting when explaining to asylum seekers their rights or providing health services). The Chancellor made the following recommendations to the reception centre: (1) ensure that asylum seekers also have a possibility to receive information on practical issues relating to daily life and contact the staff of the reception centre in a language spoken and understood by them; (2) analyse how to ensure on a daily basis the possibility to exercise this right if an asylum seeker speaks a language which the staff of the centre do not understand; (3) inform asylum seekers clearly how interpreting is arranged in such cases; (4) conclude advance agreements for interpreting to ensure quick involvement of an interpreter in case of need. The reception centre admitted that it is extremely complicated to ensure the possibility of exercising this right on a daily basis if an asylum seeker speaks a language which the staff of the centre do not understand. The reception centre cannot guarantee the possibility of interpretation on a daily basis as long as the budget of the centre is not sufficient to cover any interpreting costs. If an asylum seeker speaks a language which the staff do not understand, a solution is found on a case-by-case basis to ensure access to information (e.g. involvement of interpreters, assistance of support persons from Johannes Mihkelson Centre, etc). Eighth, the Chancellor made recommendations to the Minister of Social Affairs and the reception centre in connection with training of the staff of the centre: (1) provide in-service training on issues of cultural, linguistic and religious particularities and intercultural conflict, as well as recognition of stress symptoms and risk of suicidal behaviour; (2) provide further language training, so that the staff would be able to communicate with the asylum seekers with regard to at least practical daily issues. 45