CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PART IV PART III PART II PART I 5.4. Security check without a legal basis The inspection revealed that supervisory staff at Tapa Special School perform security checks of the pupils arriving at the school, involving both visual as well as pat-down checks. Routine security checks are carried out in respect of all the pupils returning from a home visit or a short-term leave, and sometimes also in case of pupils’ movement inside the school. The school supervision manager justified the security checks with the need to ensure that pupils do not possess any prohibited items or substances. The Chancellor understands the practical need to perform, in case of a reasoned suspicion, security checks of pupils arriving at the school, but cannot accept the restriction of fundamental rights of persons without a legal basis. § 20(1) of the Constitution establishes everyone’s right to liberty and security of person (the fundamental right to liberty of person). Under § 20(2) of the Constitution, liberty of person may be restricted only in the cases and pursuant to a procedure provided by law. The Supreme Court has also noted that obliging a person to show the items in their pockets interferes with the right to liberty of person under § 20 of the Constitution and this may be done only in the cases and pursuant to the procedure provided by law.48 The Juvenile Sanctions Act does not authorise supervisory staff of special schools to perform security checks of pupils. The director of a school for pupils in need of special treatment due to behavioural problems or a person authorised by the director has the right to confiscate prohibited items and substances from a pupil in the presence of the pupil, as well as open postal and other consignments sent to a pupil in the presence of the pupil. However, the above does not provide for the right to perform a pat-down check of pupils and their clothing. The power to perform security checks of children in need of special treatment due to behavioural problems does not arise from any other legislation either. The Police and Border Guard Act provides for the right of the police to perform security checks of persons but this right does not extend to the supervisory staff of special schools. Similarly, the provisions of the Security Act authorising security guards, when apprehending a person, to carry out a security check of the person and the items carried by them in order to verify that the apprehended person is not in possession of items or substances with which they could endanger themselves or others, do not extend to supervisory staff of special schools. Supervisory staff of Tapa Special School are neither security guards nor guards of an in-house guarding unit in the meaning of the Security Act. Thus, in case of a reasoned suspicion that a pupil may be in possession of prohibited items or substances, the school should contact the police. As a result of the inspection, the Chancellor recommended the Minister of Education and Research to analyse whether certain staff of special schools should be given the right to perform security checks of pupils under certain conditions. The Chancellor also recommended the Minister of Education and Research to provide clear guidance to special schools on how to ensure that pupils do not have any prohibited items or substances until the staff of special schools do not have the right to perform security checks. 5.5. Right to the confidentiality of messages and inviolability of private life The inspection revealed that the possibilities of pupils at Tapa Special School to communicate with their next of kin were extremely limited. The pupils had no possibility to communicate with their next of kin via the internet as the use of the internet was allowed only for study purposes and under the supervision of a member of staff. Pupils could communicate with their next of kin by telephone at the designated times and only if a parent himself of herself called the school. The maximum length of a conversation was limited to 7 minutes at a time and the phone call took place under the supervision of a member of staff. The only possibility of private communication with next of kin was by letter. 28 48 The Supreme Court Criminal Chamber judgment of 19 May 2005, No 3-1-1-43-05, para 7.