restraining were missing. On several occasions it had not been recorded whether the person sustained any injuries in the course of restraining, and the steps following the application of the means of restraint were not documented either. In the third institution55 some of the forms on restraint lacked records on the supervision of the restraint. In the opinion of the Chancellor, the form on restraint should be filled out in a way as to offer sufficient information about the justification of the restraint, any injuries sustained, supervision of the patient and any explanations provided. Records should be sufficiently thorough so that after the restraint it is possible to establish clearly the circumstances and reasons constituting the grounds for restraint. Complying with the duty of documenting is an important prerequisite for ensuring the fundamental rights of persons. If restriction of the fundamental right to liberty in the form of restraint is not sufficiently documented, the Chancellor of Justice or other competent supervisory authorities cannot adequately assess compliance with the fundamental rights and freedoms of the restrained patients and lawfulness of the restraint. Therefore, the Chancellor recommended to record the use of means of restraint in a way that complies with the applicable requirements and, inter alia, allows verifying the justifications for applying the means of restraint (including the situations prior to restraining and inappropriateness of alternative measures), frequency of supervision of the restrained person, substantive need for continuation of restraint (including continuing inappropriateness of using any alternative measures), and explanation of the need and reasons for restraint to the patient. 6.4. Guarantee of privacy As a recurring problem, privacy of the patients was identified during the reporting year. In one institution56 both the department for men as well as women had only one washing room; in the men’s washing room washing took place in the range of vision of other patients in the room; washing always took place in the presence of the staff; the doors of the toilets and the washing rooms could not be locked, the door of the men’s toilet had an opening which allowed observing what was taking place in the room; access to the women’s washing room was only through a ward which was in use; there was no possibility to be on one’s own in the department, including no possibility to be in silence, close the door of the ward or use a screen in the ward. In another institution57 there were no separate clearly marked toilets for women and men; one of the toilets had no door; the department did not have a room where a patient could talk to their visitors without being disturbed; there were no possibilities to be on one’s own. The Chancellor understands that providers of health care services must pay closer attention to persons in an acute mental state in order to ensure their safety. This presumes sufficient supervision of the persons. At the same time, as regards the choice of measures for ensuring sufficient supervision, the providers of psychiatric care must assess whether the measure to be applied is of the kind which least interferes with the privacy of the person while helping to ensure the protection of the rights of patients. In addition, it should be assessed how intensively the measure interferes with the privacy of the person. In the opinion of the Chancellor, when assessing all the facts in aggregate, such an intensive interference with the privacy of the patients was not proportionate to the desired aim and could endanger the human dignity of the patients. Therefore, the Chancellor recommended to take steps for ensuring the privacy of the patients. 55 Narva Hospital. North Estonia Medical Centre. 57 Narva Hospital. 56 36