An indication that the fundamental right to liberty of recipients of nursing care services may be restricted with the knowledge of the state was found in the Health Board’s 2011 analysis of the providers of nursing care services as well as in the 2011 annual summary of the incidents in nursing care compiled by the Estonian Patient Advocacy Association. Inspection visits by the Chancellor of Justice have shown that a risk of unlawful restriction of the fundamental right to liberty of the recipients of nursing care services indeed exists. There are almost 150 establishments in Estonia qualifying as places of detention within the meaning of OPCAT. The majority of them are police detention facilities and social welfare institutions. The choice of the establishments to be inspected is made when drawing up the Chancellor’s annual work plan, also laying down the time and type of the visits (i.e. announced or unannounced visits) and whether and which experts need to be involved in the visits. Obviously, the plan is drawn up subject to consideration that some scope is left for ad hoc visits. The Chancellor’s choice of the establishments to be inspected is based first and foremost on the time passed from the previous visit (the aim is to inspect each establishment at least once every three years), the seriousness of problems posed by the particular facility in terms of the guarantee of fundamental rights, and circumstances having attracted the Chancellor’s attention and requiring immediate verification (e.g. information obtained from the media or from petitions to the Chancellor). In 2014, 37 inspection visits to 49 places of detention were carried out. The number of unannounced inspection visits was 30. In comparison, 40 inspection visits to 38 places of detention were carried out in 2013; 23 visits to 23 places of detention in 2012; 33 visits to 35 places of detention in 2011; 27 visits to 33 places of detention in 2010; 25 visits to 37 places of detention in 2009; 19 visits to 40 places of detention in 2008, and 18 visits in 2007. By types of establishments, the inspection visits in 2014 can be categorised as follows: 1) police detention facilities – 6 unannounced visits, 18 places of detention inspected; 2) accommodation centre for asylum applicants – 1 announced visit, 1 place of detention inspected; 3) prisons – 2 unannounced and 1 announced visits, 3 places of detention inspected; 4) Defence Forces – 3 announced visits, 3 places of detention inspected; 5) providers of rehabilitation services to children with addiction problems – 2 announced visits, 2 places of detention inspected; 6) providers of involuntary emergency psychiatric care – 4 unannounced visits, 4 places of detention inspected; 7) providers of 24-hour special care services – 6 unannounced visits, 6 places of detention inspected; 8) providers of nursing care services – 12 unannounced visits, 12 places of detention inspected. Experts were involved in 15 inspection visits in 2014. Of these, on three occasions the experts were general practitioners, on one occasion a psychiatrist, on two occasions a child psychiatrist and on nine occasions nursing care specialists. In addition, on three occasions the Chancellor involved a rescue service official and on eight occasions a specialist from the State Agency of Medicines. 7