CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM sent. According to the head of the centre, in the future an agreement would be drawn up as an appendix to the treatment and rehabilitation agreement, stating that the centre has the right to inspect a young person’s communication with persons outside the centre. The young person and their guardian would sign the informed consent. According to the head of the centre, in the future all the reasons for cancelling of classes would be recorded in the relevant journal. The head of the centre also promised that the centre would guarantee the presence of at least two staff members on the premises 24 hours day. The director of the National Institute for Health Development explained that in the future the Institute would supervise more frequently the activities of Jõhvi Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre and the existence of a written informed consent by young people referred to receive the service. The Minister of Education and Research replied that he had asked Ida-Viru County Governor to carry out state supervision of the educational activities provided in the rehabilitation centre by Jõhvi Upper Secondary School. In a conclusion with regard to the results of state supervision, the Minister admitted that currently there was no legal regulation of the organisation of education in rehabilitation establishments for children with addiction problems. At the same time, the Minister noted that the results of the supervision performed by Ida-Viru County Administration allow for a conclusion that the organisers of educational activities in the rehabilitation centre have tried to proceed from the individuality of pupils, their state of health as well as their ability and readiness to learn, but the organisation of education does not conform to the legislation. The Chancellor of Justice carried out a follow-up inspection visit on 30 December 2010 to verify compliance with his proposals and recommendations. The follow-up inspection revealed that Jõhvi Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre had implemented almost all the proposals and recommendations made as a result of the visit of 16 February 2010. Problems still existed with finding the sufficient number of qualified staff. But the head of the centre affirmed that they were actively looking for new instructors. 3. Tallinn Children’s Shelter The follow-up visit to Tallinn Children’s Centre on 1 June 2010 showed that the provider of the rehabilitation service had implemented most of the proposals made by the Chancellor as a result of his visit of 5 March 2009. A few problems still existed with drawing up some documents. Specifically, contracts of some children lacked the signature of the child receiving the rehabilitation service. Also, not all the client contracts had the date of concluding the contract and the period of its validity. The Chancellor drew the attention of the head of the shelter to the above problems and the head promised to eliminate them at the first opportunity. 70