PART IV PART III PART II PART I CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM activity guidance for unaccompanied minors; an opportunity to acquire education for children at the age of compulsory school attendance; providing necessary services (including psychological counselling) in the manner and language understood by minors; explaining internal rules of the institution orally and in simple language; involving guardianship authorities in the resolving of issues relating to stay in the centre. The Minister of Internal Affairs replied that when the PBGB detains an unaccompanied minor who is a foreigner, they are sent through the Social Insurance Board to an institution providing the substitute home service. However, the administrative court may authorise placement of a person in the centre in case of a reasoned suspicion concerning the correctness of data about the person’s age. In this case, the person in the centre is treated as an adult until a different conclusion about the person’s age is reached based on an expert assessment or other evidence. 2.5. Other issues In addition, the Chancellor recommended to arrange for interpretation in case of need during the provision of health services and psychological counselling. He also repeated the recommendation to provide dental treatment to the detainees at the expense of the centre in case the detainees do not have money to pay for dental treatment. The Chancellor also referred to the incompatibility of the Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act with European law with regard to issues concerning voluntary departure of persons from Estonia, establishment of the grounds for detention and the term of detention. In this regard, the Chancellor pointed out the supremacy of European law. The Chancellor also proposed to the Minister of Internal Affairs to analyse the Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act in its entirety, as well as the internal rules of the centre established on the basis of it, in order to take account of the obligations arising from the law, the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, the guidelines of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) and the principle of good administration. 3. Prisons During the reporting year, the Chancellor carried out announced inspection visits to two prisons: −− inspection visit to Tartu Prison (case No 7-7/130537); −− inspection visit to Harku territory of Harku and Murru Prison (hereinafter also Harku and Murru Prison) (case No 7-7/140144). A general practitioner was involved in the visit to Tartu Prison as an expert to assess the provision of health services. Two paediatricians were involved in the visit to Harku and Murru Prison to inspect the living conditions and growth environment of children in the department for mothers and children, the suitability and sufficiency of health services provided to children staying in the prison together with their mothers, the health and physical development of the children, and social protection of the children. The Chancellor has previously carried out a thorough inspection of Tartu Prison on two occasions (in 2006 and 2009) and of the former Harku Prison on three occasions (2001, 2007 and 2010). The shortcomings found as a result of the inspection of the prisons are described in more detail below. 18