report, the summary of the inspection visit was being prepared. The summary will be published on the Chancellor’s homepage under the section Inspection visits. On 27–28 March 2014, the Chancellor’s advisers carried out an announced inspection visit to Jõhvi Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre (case No 7-9/140744). The Chancellor has inspected the centre also previously, the latest inspection took place on 16 February 2010.19 A child psychiatrist was involved in the inspection visit as an expert and examined the treatment documents of children, gave an assessment of the appropriateness and sufficiency of the health care and rehabilitation services provided to children, and assessed the conformity of the living conditions in the centre to the needs of the children. Even though the Chancellor in his presentation20 already more than four and a half years ago drew the attention of the Riigikogu to the fact that Estonia lacked a state-level concept for the rehabilitation service and statutory requirements for the providers of rehabilitation services, the situation today has not changed.21 It is still not regulated what kind of assistance children who have been referred to a rehabilitation service (health care services, rehabilitation services, education, etc) are entitled to receive. There are also no mandatory requirements for the providers of the rehabilitation service (requirements for the territory and rooms, staff, the number of children participating in the programme or receiving the service, etc). And it is still not regulated whether and to what extent the provider of the rehabilitation service may restrict the fundamental rights of children during the provision of the service if it is indispensable in view of the successfulness of the rehabilitation process.22 Also the situation where a child himself or herself refuses to go to the rehabilitation institution is insufficiently regulated.23 19 See the summary of the inspection visit. See the Chancellor’s presentation No 1 of 15 September 2009 in Estonian. 21 On 23 January 2012, the Government submitted to the Riigikogu a Draft Act for amending the Mental Health Act, the Health Services Organisation Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, by which it wished to regulate this area but for some reason the proceedings of the Draft Act have stalled in the Riigikogu. 22 Also during the current inspection visit to Jõhvi Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre an issue of the constitutionality of the restrictions applied in respect of the children arose. For example, performing security checks in respect of children, placing children in the so-called reflection room, restricting the communication of children, checking the correspondence and telephone communication of children, compulsory urine sample upon return to the centre from home. In the opinion of the staff of the centre, such restrictions are indispensable for successfulness of the rehabilitation, and similar restrictions have been applied in the centre for more than ten years, however no legal basis for applying such restrictions exists. 23 The existing rehabilitation institutions (Tallinn Children’s Shelter and Jõhvi Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre) are closed institutions from which children are not allowed to leave at will. Thus, the placement of children in the institution on the basis of a decision of a juvenile committee amounts to deprivation of liberty in the meaning of § 20 of the Constitution. § 20 of the Constitution allows restricting the fundamental right to liberty only in the cases and pursuant to a procedure provided by law under the grounds exhaustively listed in clauses 1 to 6 of § 20(2) of the Constitution. The grounds established by law must proceed from solid objectives listed in the Constitution, whereas the grounds for the restriction of liberty under § 20(2) of the Constitution must not be interpreted extensively to the detriment of the person enjoying the respective fundamental right. Currently, children are referred to receive the rehabilitation service mostly on the basis of the decisions of juvenile committees. However, the law has not given the juvenile committees the right to restrict the liberty of children with the aim of subjecting them to the rehabilitation service. Also a child’s own consent for the receipt of the rehabilitation service does not legitimise the deprivation of liberty without a legal basis. 20 27