PART III PART II PART I CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM In order to prevent a possibility that persons could be locked inside a room against their will, and thus eliminate the threat of restriction of the fundamental right to liberty in rooms intended for daily living, the Chancellor proposed to immediately remove the hooks from outside the doors of the rooms. 3.2. Seclusion of persons and the seclusion room Problems with seclusion of persons and seclusion rooms were found in four of the inspected establishments. In the Chancellor’s opinion the main problems were the use of seclusion rooms for other purposes besides seclusion, regular locking of a person inside the room overnight, overall inadequate condition of a seclusion room, and the use of a bucket to attend to one’s bodily needs. Two of the establishments25 used the seclusion room for other purposes (besides seclusion): in one case for sobering up of persons under alcohol intoxication, and in another case for listening to music and spending time alone. The Chancellor found that the seclusion room should be used only for seclusion of individuals because providers of 24-hour special care services are not allowed to apply any other means of restraint besides seclusion. If a seclusion room is used for other purposes, and at the same time a need for seclusion of a person arises, there is a risk that the person would be isolated in a room not designed for this where they could injure themselves or endanger their health. In one of the establishments26 24-hour special care was provided to a person who was regularly locked in their room overnight. The Chancellor found that such locking up of a person in their room amounts to seclusion. As seclusion of persons constitutes a serious interference with fundamental rights, all the requirements established for seclusion by the legislator should be fully complied with on each occasion (both as regards the grounds and procedure for seclusion). In one of the establishments27 the Chancellor found the overall condition of the seclusion room to be problematic (bars on the windows, broken window glass replaced by plywood, walls covered with particle boards, and burning marks on the walls). The Chancellor found that the overall condition of a seclusion room should be such as to offer a pacifying environment for the secluded person and thus to contribute to the withdrawal of the causes of seclusion, and the room should also ensure treatment of a person with dignity. In two of the inspected establishments28 an issue of the use of a bucket for attending to one’s bodily needs in the seclusion room arose. The Chancellor found that persons placed in a seclusion room should always be ensured the possibility to use a toilet. 4. Providers of nursing care services During the reporting year the Chancellor inspected six establishments providing nursing care services: 10 25 See the summary of inspection visit to Viljandi Hospital Foundation: http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/ files/IMCE/inspection_of_viljandi_hospital_2012.pdf and the summary of inspection visit to Tori Home of AS Hoolekandeteenused: http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/files/IMCE/inspection_of_tori_home_of_ hoolekandeteenused_ltd_2012.pdf. 26 See the summary of inspection visit to Viljandi Hospital Foundation: http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/ files/IMCE/inspection_of_viljandi_hospital_2012.pdf. 27 See the summary of inspection visit to Valkla Home of AS Hoolekandeteenused: http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/ default/files/IMCE/inspection_of_valkla_home_of_hoolekandeteenused_ltd_2012.pdf. 28 See the summary of inspection visit to Koluvere Home of AS Hoolekandeteenused: http://oiguskantsler. ee/sites/default/files/IMCE/inspection_of_koluvere_home_of_hoolekandeteenused_ltd_2012.pdf and the summary of inspection visit to Tori Home: http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/files/IMCE/inspection_of_ tori_home_of_hoolekandeteenused_ltd_2012.pdf.