CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM other ill-treatment committed by the authorities as something which happened in the past or which in today’s world could occur only in uncivilised societies. Such treatment is associated with something savage – something which civilised, cultural and “intelligent” nations no longer practice. However, when describing a child abduction case from Germany, also analysed by the European Court of Human Rights, where a police officer threatened a criminal with torture in order to save the life of an abducted innocent child, or creating an example of a terrorist captured by the state when it is known that they have information about a planned terrorist act which may result in dozens, if not hundreds, of victims, the answer may be different. At least these examples would make a person reflect longer and doubt before answering. Additional ambiguity could be caused by the absence of a clear distinction between torture and other forms of ill-treatment. For example, an average person in Estonia may be astonished to hear that Estonia as a country which considers it a democracy based on rule of law has violated Article 3 of the ECHR, which is known as a provision stipulating the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The European Court of Human Rights has twice found Estonia to be in violation of this provision. Therefore, it is particularly important that countries become aware of the necessity to fight ill-treatment and of the importance of prevention, including through awareness-raising among public authorities. An expression of such efforts on the international level is the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted on 18 December 2002. Estonia signed the Protocol on 21 September 2004 and it entered into force in respect of Estonia on 17 January 2007. The aim of the Optional Protocol is to organise regular visits by independent international and domestic institutions to places of detention in order to prevent ill-treatment. For this, the document establishes a two-tier system of institutions providing regular visits to places of detention – first, setting up the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) and, second, setting up, designating or maintaining at the domestic level at least one visiting body (national preventive mechanism, NPM) by each State Party. In Estonia, the Chancellor of Justice performs the functions of the national preventive mechanism since 18 February 2007. Under the Optional Protocol places of detention mean all places where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, either by virtue of an order given by a public authority or at its instigation or with its consent or acquiescence (Article 4 para 1). The notion of “deprivation of liberty” means any form of detention or imprisonment or the placement of a person in a public or private custodial setting which that person is not permitted to leave at will by order of any judicial, administrative or other authority (Article 4 para 2). In other words, in addition to state custodial institutions, places of detention include all other institutions, regardless of their form of ownership, where the liberty of persons is restricted by order of a public authority or with its consent or acquiescence and from where persons are not permitted to leave at will. Thus, places of detention include not only prisons and police detention centres but also closed wards at psychiatric hospitals, care homes, etc. However, drawing a line between places of detention and the so-called open institutions is not easy in practice. In the final stage, the distinction may depend on a specific fact – whether persons staying in an institution are deprived of their liberty by locking the doors of wards and/or front doors against their will, committing them to a seclusion room, etc. In the practice of the Chancellor of Justice, such borderline institutions are called “institutions with OPCAT suspicion”. Subdivision V of the overview report, for example, includes the reception centre for asylum seekers and offices of the Police and Border Guard Board which are considered to be institutions with OPCAT suspicion although during the inspection visit it was    In more detail, see E. Hilgendorf. Piinamine õigusriigis [Torture in a rule of law]. – Juridica 2004, No 10, p 661 ff; W. Gropp. Füüsilise jõu kasutamise õiguslikud alused. Daschneri kaasus ja Saksamaa lennuohutusseadus. [Legal bases for use of physical force. The Daschner case and the German aviation security law] – Juridica 2007, No 2, p 75 ff; European Court of Human Rights judgments of 30 June 2008 and 1 June 2010 in case No 22978/05, Gäfgen v. Germany. European Court of Human Rights judgment of 8 November 2005 in case No 64812/01, Alver v. Estonia; judgment of 2 July 2009 in case No 41653/05, Kochetkov v. Estonia. Translations of judgments into Estonian are available online: http://www. vm.ee/?q=node/9121#sisu. Its homepage is available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/opcat/index.htm.