CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM As a result of the inspection, the Chancellor proposed to Tartu Prison that in case of continued restraint with handcuffs the restrained person should be checked by communicating directly with the person at least every 15 minutes. 3.2. Recording of the use of physical force, service weapon, special equipment or means of restraint and examination of the health status of an offender in the relevant report During the inspections, reports on the use of physical force, service weapon, special equipment or means of restraint and examination of the health status of offenders were examined. It was found that on several occasions the note made by the health care staff regarding the health of a restrained detainee was very general or the time35 and/or date36 of the examination was missing. In addition, the inspection of Harku and Murru Prison revealed shortcomings in documenting the application of direct coercion. PART II PART III Based on domestic case-law and opinions of international organisations (e.g. CPT), the Chancellor concluded that, in practice, if means of restraint in respect of a detained person are used for more than 10 minutes continuously a prison should deem it to be a situation of continued restraint. And, Part III („Examination in case of continued use of restraint“) of the report on the use of physical force, service weapon, special equipment or means of restraint and examination of the health status of the offender must always be filled out. PART IV During the inspections, reports on the use of physical force, service weapons, special equipment or means of restraint and examination of the health status of offenders were examined. The following questions arose upon the examination of the reports. First, after which period does the application of means of restraint become continued? Secondly, after which period should a person subjected to restraint be checked in case of continued restraint (i.e. assess the continued need for the application of the particular means of restraint)? PART I 3.1. Checking of a person in case of continued restraint Based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court, as well as the CPT opinions, the Chancellor emphasised the importance of properly documenting the use of physical force, service weapon, special equipment or means of restraint in respect of detained persons. This is important for the prevention and combating of ill-treatment of detained persons but also for the authorities for disproving unfounded allegations of ill-treatment. The use of these measures must be documented in a manner that allows to establish in respect of whom, which measure and for how long was used and how, when and who checked the condition of the person. In case of a medical examination, it is important to record, inter alia, the time of the examination, any objective findings and the name(s) of the medical staff examining the person. On this basis, the Chancellor recommended that in the future the prisons should record the result of the examination by health care staff in the report as specifically as possible and also note in the report other data concerning the check carried out by the health care staff (time of the check, name and signature of the staff). In addition, the Chancellor recommended to Harku and Murru Prison in the future to record in the reports on the use of physical force, service weapon, special equipment or means of restraint and examination of the health status of the offenders more specifically also those factual circumstances (e.g. the behaviour of a detained person) which led to the use of direct coercion and its continuation, or clearly indicate in the report where such information can be found. 35 See the inspection visit to Tartu Prison (case No 7-7/130537). 36 See the inspection visit to Harku territory of Harku and Murru Prison (case No 7-7/140144). 19