persons outside the centre, including in respect of women and (allegedly) minors. In addition, no factual justification for the use of handcuffs was recorded on the relevant authorisations and, in some cases, the limits of competence were not respected. It was also not evident in the procedural documents whether handcuffs had been used during medical procedures and whether the escort team was present (i.e. within the hearing distance or the range of vision) during the provision of health services. PART I CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM During the inspection visit, persons staying in the centre complained about catering. The main complaint was insufficiency of the food and a very long interval between dinner and breakfast. The Chancellor recommended to the Director General of the PBGB to increase the standard food portions and to the Health Board, when supervising the provision of meals in the centre, to proceed from the increased standard food portions intended for detainees engaged in little physical activity, staying indoors and engaged in work and activities requiring sitting. The follow-up visit showed that the recommendation had not been complied with. As the complaints with regard to the catering at the centre had also reached the court, the Chancellor did not find it possible to re-examine the issue. PART III 2.2. Catering PART IV In addition, the Chancellor dealt with the issue of applying security measures in respect of the detainees in the centre. The Chancellor drew the attention of the Director General of the PBGB to the need to apply security measures only for purposes of eliminating a threat arising from a particular person if the person, either with their actions or due to a health condition, poses a danger to themselves, to others or to the security of the centre. The Chancellor recommended complying with the requirements of administrative procedure when deciding the use of security measures. PART II The follow-up inspection showed that as a result of the Chancellor’s relevant recommendations the practice of using handcuffs had been significantly changed and handcuffs were used only exceptionally. 2.3. Opportunities for spending free time The Chancellor repeated his recommendation to diversify the range of activities offered to persons detained in the centre for a longer period. The follow-up inspection showed that the PBGB had taken several steps in this regard. The duties of one of the officials who had been employed by the centre included the creation of opportunities for spending free time: Estonian language classes were offered, as well as manual activities (drawing, handiwork), a project to expand sporting opportunities and enable access to the internet was planned. 2.4. Detention of minors At the time of the inspection visit, several (allegedly) minors were being detained in the centre. However, according to the age assessment expert report, most of them were found to be over the age of 18. The Chancellor referred to the principle established in international instruments, according to which minors should normally not be detained for purposes of migration management. The Chancellor recommended that in cases where minors are nonetheless detained in the centre, the following should be provided: opportunities for age-specific activities (e.g. by providing art supplies, suitable books, language learning games or books that could be used by persons speaking different languages, opportunities for physical activity); educational supervision and 17