I. INTRODUCTION The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) was adopted on 18 December 2002. Estonia signed the Protocol on 21 September 2004 and it entered into force in respect of Estonia on 17 January 2007. In Estonia, the Chancellor of Justice performs the functions of the national preventive mechanism since 18 February 2007.1 What constitutes the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (hereinafter also called ill-treatment) was explained in more detail in the Chancellor of Justice 2010 Overview2. In his previous overviews the Chancellor also pointed out that the earlier definition of torture under the Penal Code was not essentially in line with the internationally recognised approach. The absence of a proper definition of torture in the Estonian penal law was also repeatedly criticised by the United Nations as well as the Council of Europe Committee against Torture and other international organisations.3 The Chancellor can note with satisfaction that in 2014 amendments under the Act for amending the Penal Code and the relating legislation were introduced, repealing the previous provision on torture (§ 122 Penal Code). Under the Penal Code entering into effect on 1 January 2015 the definition of torture conforming to the international concept was established, while also maintaining other definitions of closely related offences (see §§ 2901, 121, 312, 324). In addition, the definition of torture now also includes causing of mental pain or suffering. Previously, the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of Article 3 (establishing a prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Estonia on five occasions.4 In 2014, one more judgment to this effect was made.5 Under the Optional Protocol, places of detention mean all places where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, either by virtue of an order given by a public authority or at its instigation or with its consent or acquiescence (Article 4 para 1). The notion of “deprivation of liberty” means any form of detention or imprisonment or the placement of a person in a public or private custodial setting which that person is not permitted to leave at will by order of any judicial, administrative or other authority (Article 4 para 2). In other words, in addition to state custodial institutions, places of detention include all other institutions, regardless of their form of ownership, where the liberty of persons is restricted by order of a public authority or with its consent or acquiescence and from where persons are not permitted to leave at will. Thus, places of detention include not only prisons and police detention centres but also closed wards at psychiatric hospitals, care homes, etc.6 See the Chancellor of Justice Act, § 1(7). See the Chancellor of Justice 2010 Overview, p 6. 3 See, e.g., the opinion of the UN Committee against Torture, para 8 or Concluding observations of the UN Human Rights Committee, para 7. 4 European Court of Human Rights judgment of 8 November 2005 in case No 64812/01, Alver v. Estonia; judgment of 2 July 2009 in case No 41653/05, Kotšetkov v. Estonia; judgment of 29 May 2012 in cases No 16563/08, 40841/08, 8192/10 and 18656/10, Julin v. Estonia; judgment of 28 March 2013 in case No 10195/08, Korobov and Others v. Estonia; judgment of 19 December 2013 in case No 429/12, Tunis v. Estonia. 5 European Court of Human Rights judgment of 13 February 2014 in case No 66393/10, Tali v. Estonia. 6 On distinctions between places of detention and the so-called open establishments, see the Chancellor of Justice 2010 Overview, p 7. 1 2 6