yards were too narrow, i.e. they offered shelter from poor weather but did not at the same time provide enough space to sufficiently move around or train. Also, not all the exercise yards had benches for rest. The Chancellor recommended to Viru Prison to provide sufficiently wide roofs in the exercise yards, so as to allow detained persons to actively move around or train also in poor weather. The Chancellor also recommended to provide each exercise yard with a resting facility and, depending on the number of persons in each exercise yard, provide it with a bench or benches. Additionally, it was found that the walking time designated for juvenile detainees in Viru Prison was mostly at unreasonably early hours (6.00 to 7.00 in the morning) and therefore they often did not make use of it. The Chancellor found that the exercise of the right to be outdoors by juvenile detainees should be not only a theoretical possibility but it should be possible to realistically make use of it. Scheduling the time for outdoor exercise for early hours in the morning is not in line with the principle under which good conditions for promoting and supporting the development of minors should also be ensured in prison conditions. The Chancellor recommended to Viru Prison to review the time schedule for outdoor exercise for minors and, if necessary, change it so that spending time outdoors would be reasonably possible for them. In connection with the detention conditions in the new buildings of Tallinn Prison, the Chancellor recommended to the Ministry of Justice to create conditions suitable for female detained persons, minors and persons with disabilities for daily physical activity and training both outdoors and indoors. In the opinion of the Chancellor, small children staying in prison should also be ensured playing and training conditions appropriate for their age both indoors and outdoors. 3.4. Visits The inspection of Tallinn Prison raised a question whether the room on the second floor of the accommodation building E1 was suitable for confidential communication. According to the prison service, the room was also used for meetings with the lawyers and counsel. The Chancellor recommended to Tallinn Prison to take measures to ensure that conversations in the room could not be easily overheard in the storeroom next to it. In its reply Tallinn Prison said it was looking for a solution how to prevent the sound from the room reaching the neighbouring storeroom. The convicted prisoners who talked to the Chancellor’s advisers during the inspection visit to Viru Prison complained that although it would be most convenient for their next of kin to come for a visit on Saturday they could often not use this possibility due to too early visiting hours assigned for this. The Chancellor recommended to Viru Prison to review the Saturday’s time schedule for short-term visits for convicted prisoners (also taking into account the schedules of public transport arriving in Jõhvi from other towns) as well as the organisation of the visits, and change the practice so as to allow as many people as possible to realistically have short-term visits with convicted prisoners. In their conversations with the Chancellor’s advisers many detained persons in Viru Prison also pointed out an inconvenient environment for short-term visits. They said it was particularly inconvenient for children coming for a visit, because it was very difficult for the children to be in a small room separated by a glass and without any opportunity for establishing physical contact with their parent or for playing or joint activity. The Chancellor noted that a prison’s 23