PART IV PART III PART II PART I CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM its necessity and justification in each case cannot be purposeful. On this basis, the Chancellor recommended to ensure that in a situation where a person has not given a consent for using video surveillance in a ward the necessity and extent of applying video surveillance will be considered in each particular case.63 7. Providers of 24-hour special care services In 2013, the Chancellor inspected 13 providers of 24-hour special care services: −− non-profit association Paju Boarding Houses (case No 7-9/130478); −− non-profit association South Estonian Special Care Services Centre (case No 7-9/130904); −− non-profit association Lääne County Psychosocial Rehabilitation Centre (case No 7-9/130534); −− Haapsalu Welfare Centre Foundation (case No 7-9/130477); −− Sõmera Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No 7-9/130603); −− Pariisi Special Care Centre Ltd (case No 7-9/131299); −− Erastvere Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No 7-9/130438); −− Rõngu Nursing Care Centre Foundation (case No 7-9/130435); −− Kodijärve Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No 7-9/130901); −− South Estonian Care Centre Ltd (case No 7-9/130904); −− Kehra Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No 7-9/130902); −− Viljandi Hospital Foundation (case No 7-9/130865);64 −− non-profit association Valga County Support Centre (case No 7-9/130903). The aim of the inspection was to assess the safety of clients receiving 24-hour special care services and lawfulness of the restriction of the fundamental right to liberty. All the inspection visits were unannounced and no experts were involved as the Chancellor inspected the institutions with regard to the aspects where no specialist knowledge was needed for the assessment. Some institutions65 were visited repeatedly during a short period by the Chancellor’s advisers, including at night without a prior notice, in order to verify compliance with the Chancellor’s proposals. The main problems found during the inspections concerned possible unlawful restriction of the fundamental right to liberty of the recipients of 24-hour special care services, non-conformity of the number of clients to the number of places noted on the operating licence, and an insufficient number of activity supervisors. In addition, there were still problems with the safety of seclusion rooms and registration of the applied means of restraint. These shortcomings and the Chancellor’s proposals and recommendation for remedying them are described in more detail below. Several of the shortcomings pointed out by the Chancellor had been eliminated by the time of writing this report. 7.1 Restriction of the liberty of persons Similarly to the inspection visits in 2012, it was found that in some special care homes the clients’ fundamental right to liberty could be unlawfully restricted. For example, in three of the inspected institutions66 doors of the rooms of persons voluntarily receiving 24-hour special care 32 63 In the interests of transparency and verifiability, such a decision should be made in a reproducible form in writing in each case and in respect of each person. The decision to apply video surveillance should be valid only for a specific period after which it should be reviewed. 64 Social welfare unit. 65 See the inspection visits to Viljandi Hospital Foundation (case No 7-9/130865) and non-profit association Valga County Support Centre (case No 7-9/130903) 66 See the inspection visits to non-profit association Paju Boarding Houses (case No 7-9/130478), non-profit association Lääne County Psychosocial Rehabilitation Centre (case No 7-9/130534) and Viljandi Hospital Foundation (case No 7-9/130865).