CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM II. PREVENTION OF ILL-TREATMENT IN SOCIAL WELFARE INSTITUTIONS 1. Introduction An important measure in the prevention of ill-treatment includes raising the awareness among the staff of social welfare institutions as well as among the wider public about the essence of ill-treatment and the need to fight it. In 2010, the Chancellor of Justice started a training project for social welfare institutions with the aim to raise the awareness of the staff of the institutions about fundamental rights of persons receiving the service (hereinafter also called the clients or persons under care), including about ill-treatment and the necessity and possibilities for its prevention. Although the range of issues covered in connection with fundamental rights during the training is wider than only issues directly relating to ill-treatment, any improvement in the protection of fundamental rights contributes at least indirectly to the prevention of ill-treatment. Thus, for example, the duty of a welfare institution to notify a client and their legal representative about their rights helps, inter alia, to ensure awareness of the persons about various legal remedies, including in case of ill-treatment; the right of access to data and the duty to maintain registers allow for supervision over the activities of the institutions, etc. Within the training project, an adviser to the Chancellor of Justice carried out training sessions in 15 care homes. The sessions took place from March to the end of November 2010. In total, 237 care home staff members who have contact with clients were trained (including activity supervisors, social workers, management). The specific nature of each care home was taken into account and the training sessions covered topics such as sources of fundamental rights (international and domestic), recommendations of international organisations, and opinions of the Chancellor of Justice concerning various issues relating to fundamental rights of persons under care in social welfare institutions. Best practices of protecting the rights of clients were also discussed. Depending on the participants, training sessions were held either in Estonian or Russian. At the end of each training day, the participants dealt with practical case studies on issues covered and discussed during the training. The participants could also ask questions about fundamental rights of persons receiving the service. Answers to questions were found during a joint debate. Based on the training sessions, a certain number of questions concerning fundamental rights of persons receiving the service can be highlighted as they were raised in almost every care home. Assuming that the topics could also be of general interest for the staff in other care homes as well as for the public, an overview of ten selected issues and related answers covered during the training is provided below. 2. Freedom of movement of clients outside the territory of a social welfare institution Participants in the training asked whether and to what extent persons receiving a 24-hour special care service may move outside the territory of a care home and whether and to what extent the care home may restrict their freedom of movement.13 Practical need for restricting the freedom of movement arises allegedly from the aim to ensure the safety of the clients in order to avoid a danger to the client himself or herself or to other persons. If a person is voluntarily receiving 24-hour special care service or other special welfare service, they naturally have the right to freely move around within the rooms and territory designated for the provision of the service as well as outside, and the service provider may not restrict the freedom of movement of the person. Section 1151(1) of the Social Welfare Act establishes certain obligations for providers of 24-hour special care service: the obligation to be aware whether the person receiving 24-hour special care service stays in the premises or on the territory designated for the provision of the service or outside of the premises or territory, and to ensure inspection of entry into and exit from the premises and territory. 13 This issue is also important with regard to the question what is a “place of detention” and “deprivation of liberty” 12 in the meaning of Art 4 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.