CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PART IV PART III PART II PART I shown that a risk of unlawful restriction of the fundamental right to liberty of the recipients of nursing care services indeed exists. There are almost 150 establishments in Estonia qualifying as places of detention within the meaning of OPCAT. The majority of them are police detention facilities and social welfare institutions. The choice of the establishments to be inspected is made when drawing up the Chancellor’s annual work plan, also laying down the time and type of the visits (i.e. announced or unannounced visits) and whether and which experts need to be involved in the visits. Naturally, the plan is drawn up subject to consideration that some scope is left for ad hoc visits. The Chancellor’s choice of the establishments to be inspected is based first and foremost on the time passed from the previous visit (the aim is to inspect each establishment at least once every three years), the seriousness of problems posed by the particular facility in terms of the guarantee of fundamental rights, and circumstances having attracted the Chancellor’s attention and requiring immediate verification (e.g. information obtained from the media or from petitions to the Chancellor). In 2013, 40 inspection visits to 38 places of detention were carried out. The number of unannounced inspection visits was 29. In comparison, 23 inspection visits to 23 places of detention took place in 2012; 33 visits to 35 places of detention in 2011; 27 visits to 33 places of detention in 2010; 25 visits to 37 places of detention in 2009; 19 visits to 40 places of detention in 2008, and 18 visits in 2007. By types of establishments, the inspection visits in 2013 can be categorised as follows: 1) police detention facilities – 4 visits (3 of them unannounced), 4 places of detention inspected; 2) expulsion centre – 2 announced visits, 1 place of detention inspected; 3) prisons – 2 announced visits, 3 places of detention inspected (incl. psychiatric department of Tartu Prison); 4) Defence Forces – 1 announced visit; 5) special schools – 1 announced visit; 6) providers of involuntary emergency psychiatric care – 6 visits (5 of them unannounced), 6 places of detention inspected; 7) providers of 24-hour special care services – 15 visits (14 of them unannounced), 13 places of detention inspected; 8) providers of general care services – 1 unannounced visit; 9) providers of nursing care services – 8 visits (6 of them unannounced), 8 possible places of detention inspected. Experts were involved in six inspection visits in 2013. On five occasions, the experts were general practitioners and on one occasion a paediatrician. The methodology and criteria of the inspection visits on the basis of which the places of detention are assessed were described in more detail in the Chancellor’s 2010 Overview.10 As a result of each inspection visit, a summary is compiled, containing recommendations and proposals to the inspected establishment and other relevant authorities. Summaries of inspection visits are published on the Chancellor of Justice website. Data protection requirements are observed when publishing the summaries (i.e. no personal data is disclosed, etc). A short abstract of a summary of an inspection visit is also translated into English.11 In addition to inspection visits, other activities for preventing ill-treatment have been carried out with the aim to raise awareness among staff working at and individuals held in the places 8 10 See the Chancellor’s 2010 overview, pp 8–9. Available online: http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/files/ overview_2010.pdf. 11 English translations of the abstracts of summaries of inspection visits are available online: http://oiguskantsler. ee/en/inspection-visits.