CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM Even more objectionable is seclusion of children for purposes of punishment in a room which is not intended for seclusion and which does not meet the health protection requirements. On this basis, the Chancellor proposed to the director of Kaagvere Special School to stop the practice of secluding children in the stairway regardless of the purpose of such seclusion and ensure that no degrading punishments or sanctions are applied to children at the school. The inspection also revealed that children in Kaagvere Special School were given the possibility to communicate with their close friends and relatives three times a week ten minutes at a time. The children used personal mobile phones to communicate with persons close to them. According to the girls who were interviewed, pupils who did not have a personal mobile phone could communicate with persons close to them by using the mobile phones of personal counsellors or social pedagogy teachers, but not regularly and less frequently than three times a week and less than ten minutes at a time. The use of the telephone at the school was organised in a way that two to three children were in the same room at the time of calling and they had to make the calls in the presence of other children and sometimes also the school staff. The interviewed children were clearly disturbed by the presence of other children and staff during the phone calls and complained that they could not speak confidentially and talk about problems they had with other pupils or school staff. In addition to the interviewed children, the director of the school also affirmed the existence of such an arrangement for phone calls. The director justified it by the fact that there were 19 children at school and they all had to be found a time slot for calling. At the same time, it was necessary to ensure that the daily schedule of the school was maintained and necessary activities carried out. The Chancellor noted that he understood the director’s wish to ensure that the daily schedule and the activities prescribed in it were implemented but such an arrangement of calling was unacceptable as it violated the right of children to the inviolability of private life and confidentiality of messages. Moreover, the presence of school staff within the hearing distance was contrary to the principle established under § 61(4) of the Juvenile Sanctions Act, according to which the director or other staff of a school for pupils with special needs do not have the right to examine the contents of a pupil’s messages forwarded by telephone. Therefore, in the future making of phone calls should be arranged in a way as to guarantee that children can talk to their close ones in privacy without the presence of other pupils and staff. On this basis, the Chancellor proposed to the director of Kaagvere Special School to arrange children’s communication with their parents and persons close to them in a way as to guarantee the right of children to the confidentiality of messages and inviolability of private life. The Chancellor recommended establishing the relevant changes also in the internal rules of the school. The Chancellor also recommended that the director of Kaagvere Special School, in cooperation with the operator of the school, find the necessary resources to ensure that the children who do not have a personal mobile phone can regularly communicate with their parents and persons close to them. The Chancellor recommended establishing in the internal rules of the school how exactly and how often children not having a personal mobile phone can communicate with their parents and persons close to them. The inspection also revealed that upon return from a visit to home or unauthorised departure from school, supervisory staff of Kaagvere Special School searched the personal belongings that the pupils had with them as well as the pupils themselves. The school director also admitted the search of pupils by supervisory staff and justified it with the need to ensure that prohibited items and substances are not brought to the school territory. No legal basis for the use of this measure by school staff exists. 64 The search of pupils and their belongings took place in the lobby by the front door of the school. In addition to the front door, four more doors open to the lobby: the door of the room of supervisory staff, the door of the cloakroom, the door of the first floor corridor, and the door of an office used by the school staff. The office also included a workplace of a male staff member. During the inspection, all the doors to the lobby, except the door of the first floor corridor, were open. According to the pupils, during the searches the door of the room used by the school staff was also often open. The pupils claimed that