CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM PART II The Chancellor is of the opinion that seclusion of a client of 24-hour special care services in their room is inadmissible. In order to prevent arbitrary restriction of the liberty of service recipients the Chancellor proposed to immediately remove from the doors of the rooms of clients any locking devices which can be opened only from the outside. In addition, the Chancellor recommended to the service providers to analyse which lawful measures can be taken to ensure the safety of a client who can quickly become violent as well as other clients at night and, in order to resolve the situation, take measures which, in proportion to the threat, cause least interference with the rights of the clients. The Chancellor also considered it necessary for the institution to explain to its staff the cases of admissibility of restricting the fundamental right to liberty. PART I services had locking devices which could be opened only from the outside. In two institutions67 advisers to the Chancellor found that a person receiving 24-hour special care services had indeed been locked into their bedroom. The Chancellor doubts whether some of the inspected institutions always have a sufficient number of activity supervisors present to ensure the fundamental rights of service recipients. In order to ensure a safe living environment for the recipients of 24-hour special care services and maintain or increase their ability to cope independently, in consideration of their condition and skills, the Chancellor proposed to guarantee that a sufficient number of activity supervisors are on duty in each institution every day to provide 24-hour special care. PART IV During the inspection of several institutions68 the Chancellor had a suspicion whether there was a sufficient number of activity supervisors to provide the service to persons receiving 24-hour special care. For example, in one of the inspected institutions69 only one activity supervisor was at work during the inspection visit and had to take care of 12 service recipients with serious multiple disabilities, including cooking for them, heating the stove and cleaning the rooms. In two institutions70 the Chancellor saw the problem that depending on the roster sometimes only 2 staff members per 6 houses could be on duty at night. Video surveillance was used in the corridors of the houses and the activity supervisors on night duty made a round of the houses according to the need. In the evening the activity supervisors helped clients in all the houses with their personal needs. PART III 7.2. Sufficient number of activity supervisors In reply to the Chancellor’s proposal, two of the institutions71 expressed the view that they had a sufficient number of activity supervisors and their availability was ensured by the use of video surveillance in the corridors and making regular rounds of the houses, and there was no money to hire additional staff. 7.3. The number of service recipients In two institutions72 the Chancellor found that the number of service recipients exceeded the number of persons noted on the operating licence. For example, one institution73 had been 67 See the inspection visits to non-profit association Lääne County Psychosocial Rehabilitation Centre (case No 7-9/130534) and Viljandi Hospital Foundation (case No 7-9/130865). 68 See the inspection visits to non-profit association Lääne County Psychosocial Rehabilitation Centre (case No 7-9/130534), Kodijärve Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No 7-9/130901) and Kehra Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No 7-9/130902). 69 See the inspection visit to non-profit association Lääne County Psychosocial Rehabilitation Centre (case No 7-9/130534). 70 See the inspection visits to Kodijärve Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No 7-9/130901) and Kehra Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No 7-9/130902). 71 See the inspection visits to Kodijärve Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No 7-9/130901) and Kehra Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No 7-9/130902). 72 See the inspection visits to Sõmera Home of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd (case No 7-9/130603) and South Estonian Care Centre Ltd (case No 7-9/130904). 73 See the inspection visit to South Estonian Care Centre Ltd (case No 7-9/130904). 33