After receiving the Chancellor’s opinion, the Social Insurance Board transferred all the minors receiving 24-hour special care service to another special care home. Sometime later the child’s parents contacted the Chancellor again. This time they pointed out in their petition that in the other special care home an adult client had ill-treated their child. Having assessed the case, the Chancellor concluded that although the special care home applied several general measures for ensuring the safety of the child, it could not be established that at the particular moment the work arrangements at the care home ensured supervision conforming to the individual needs and specific nature of the clients. As a result of these proceedings, the Chancellor also gave recommendations to the Social Insurance Board and the special care home with regard to the aspects that should be taken into account in providing the service to minors subjected to 24-hour special care under a court ruling. PART II The Chancellor assessed the activities of both the special care home and the Social Insurance Board in ensuring the safety of the child and found breaches in their activities. In particular, the Chancellor found that the Social Insurance Board should have explained to the special care home the requirements for the provision of the service to children32, and the Social Insurance Board should have verified the suitability of the service for the child also after the child’s referral to the special care home. The Social Insurance Board should also have given guidance to the care home with regard to the specific requirements of the child and for ascertaining the risks arising from the clients and staff of the particular establishment. As a result of the proceedings, the Chancellor gave recommendations to both the Social Insurance Board and the special care home as to what should be taken into account in the provision of the service to minors subjected to 24-hour care under a court ruling. PART III As an important issue of concern, ensuring of fundamental rights and freedoms for minors receiving 24-hour special care arose during the reporting year. The Chancellor was contacted by parents whose minor child had been subjected to a 24-hour care service under a court ruling. The parents found that the special care home did not have an environment suitable for the child and the child’s life and health were repeatedly at risk at the care home. PART IV exercise yard; provision of personal hygiene articles to detained persons; clothing of persons in a punishment cell; organisation of searches in the expulsion centre; daily living conditions in a battalion. On the basis of the above ombudsman proceedings, the Chancellor has made recommendations, proposals and conclusions for changing administrative practices. PART I CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM The Social Insurance Board replied to both of the Chancellor’s recommendations that it intended to take account of the recommendations in organising the service in the future. According to the information available to the Chancellor, since 3 December 2013 all the minors subjected to 24-hour special care service under a court ruling are accommodated separately from adults (at Imastu Boarding School of Hoolekandeteenused Ltd).33 The following subdivision contains an overview of the inspection visits made by the Chancellor to different places of detention in 2013, highlighting shortcomings that were detected. 32 Inter alia, to place a child in a room where there are no adults, and to draw attention to the need to find suitable staff for a child or to train the existing staff. 33 See the Social Insurance Board’s reply No 18-4/13230 of 3 December 2013 to the Chancellor’s recommendation. Available online in Estonian: http://adr.rik.ee/okk/fail/2591027/Sotsiaalkindlustusamet_vastus%20soovitusele.ddoc. 13