In the choice of the establishments to be inspected, the summary of the inspection of nursing care hospitals by the Health Board in 2011 and the location of the providers of nursing care services was taken into account. The aim was to inspect services providers in different regions of Estonia. All the inspection visits were carried out without an advance notice and without involving any experts. The Chancellor inspected establishments providing nursing care services because he had developed a suspicion that ill-treatment of persons could occur and the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals might not always be guaranteed in these establishments. During the inspection visits the Chancellor found two more serious problems: unlawful restriction of the fundamental right to liberty of the service recipients and absence of a nurse call system. The following subdivisions contain a more detailed overview of these problems and the Chancellor’s proposals for eliminating them. PART II – – – – Inspection visit to Rapla County Hospital Foundation (case No 7-9/130273); Inspection visit to the North Estonian Regional Hospital Foundation (case No  7-9/130325); Inspection visit to Tapa Hospital Ltd (case No 7-9/130295); Inspection visit to Pärnu-Jaagupi Care Home Foundation (case No 7-9/130283); Inspection visit to Koeru Care Centre Foundation (case No 7-9/130308); Inspection visit to Jõgeva Hospital Foundation (case No 7-9/130302). PART III – – PART I CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM 4.1. Restriction of the liberty of persons receiving the nursing care service In two of the establishments the Chancellor found that liberty of the service recipients had been unlawfully restricted. In one of the establishments29 the door of a five-person ward was closed with a latch from the outside in order to prevent one of the persons from leaving the service provider on his own. The Chancellor found that such a restriction of the fundamental right to liberty at the nursing care provider is not permitted. On this basis, the Chancellor proposed to immediately stop locking the door of the ward from the outside and to remove the latch from the door. In another establishment30 a patient was wearing a soft glove which was attached to the bed with a gauze strip. The staff explained that it was fixation for medical purposes. The Chancellor admitted that on certain occasions fixation of a person for the duration of a medical procedure may be necessary in order to ensure the person’s right to the protection of their health. However, such a restriction of the fundamental right to liberty can only be permissible until the completion of the medical procedure. Otherwise, this may amount to unjustified restriction of the fundamental right to liberty, which in such a form may lead to torture or cruel or degrading treatment. In addition, the inspection of one of the establishments revealed that it had approved a procedure for the application of means of restraint.31 However, as the establishment was not providing in-patient psychiatric services or involuntary treatment, it had no right to apply any means of restraint in the course of the provision of health services. The Chancellor found that 29 See the summary of inspection visit to Pärnu-Jaagupi Care Home Foundation: http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/ default/files/IMCE/inspection_of_parnu-jaagupi_care_home_2012.pdf. 30 See the summary of inspection visit to Tapa Hospital Ltd: http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/files/IMCE/ inspection_of_tapa_hospital_2012.pdf. 31 See the summary of inspection visit to Jõgeva Hospital Foundation: http://oiguskantsler.ee/sites/default/ files/IMCE/inspection_of_jogeva_hospital_2012.pdf. 11