11.1. Children deprived of their liberty when they had taken away a child’s favorite object. According to a staff member, there were cases when one of the children complained that he could not go home because he had done “this and that.” In my report on the visit, I pointed out that various forms of punishment jeopardizing the children’s right to psychological health or restricting communication and home leaves would result in fundamental-rights-related improprieties, so they should be abolished as soon as possible. The visiting delegation got the impression that the children were tolerant with and helpful to each other; however, there were cases when they yelled at and fought with each other and used foul language for no apparent reason. According to one of the staff members, one of the children had been ostracized by the others because “he could not be nice.” When he was agitated, he was taken to his room and put on the bed. The National Preventive Mechanism pointed out that, by taking an agitated or ostracized child to his/her room, putting him/her–as an object–on his/her bed, and leaving him/her there on his/her own, the staff had caused an impropriety related to the right to human dignity and the prohibition of inhuman treatment. Cseppkõ (Dripstone) Children’s Home The Cseppkõ Children’s Home is one of the largest single-location children’s homes in the country, consisting of three independent professional units qualifying as separate care providers with a capacity of 40 each, and an aftercare home. At the time of the visit planned for two days, the institution with an authorized capacity of 137 took care of 111 children and young adults. The living space, the number, size, and tidiness of the rooms, with the exception of certain circumstances, e.g., in some cases, the lack of doors and door handles, were adequate. In the absence of separation, and depending on the actual utilization rate, the institution provided care to 100–120 children and young adults in three independent professional units located on the premises; therefore, the institution complied only formally with the provision of the Child Protection Act stipulating that the children’s home shall not provide care to more than 48 children.199 During the two days of the visit, due to an off-site program, ordered by the director of the Home, my colleagues were not able to interview the majority of the children. Therefore, interviewing was continued on April 26, 2016, within the frameworks of an unannounced visit. During the three days of the visit, my colleagues talked to 57 residents of the Home. The way of taking care of sick children, the everyday presence of a nurse, and the bi-weekly possibility to consult a pediatric psychiatrist were all con199 See Section 59, Subsection (1) of the Child Protection Act. 77