In 2012, 23 inspection visits to 23 places of detention were carried out.8 In comparison, 33 inspection visits to 35 places of detention were carried out in 2011; 27 visits to 33 places of detention in 2010; 25 visits to 37 places of detention in 2009; 19 visits to 40 places of detention in 2008; and 18 visits in 2007. PART II Chancellor’s annual work plan, also laying down the time and type of the visits (i.e. announced or unannounced visits) and whether and which experts need to be involved in the visits. Naturally, the plan is drawn up subject to consideration that some scope is left for ad hoc visits. The Chancellor’s choice of the establishments to be inspected is based first and foremost on the time passed from the previous visit (the aim is to inspect each establishment at least once every three years), the seriousness of problems posed by the particular facility in terms of the guarantee of fundamental rights, and circumstances having attracted the Chancellor’s attention and requiring immediate verification (e.g. information obtained from the media or from petitions to the Chancellor). PART I CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) police detention facilities – 5 visits (5 of them unannounced), 5 places of detention inspected; Defence Forces – 4 visits, 4 units of the Defence Forces inspected9; providers of involuntary emergency psychiatric care – 6 visits (6 of them unannounced), 6 places of detention inspected; providers of 24-hour special care services – 6 visits (6 of them unannounced), 6 places of detention inspected; providers of nursing care services – 6 visits (6 of them unannounced), 6 places of detention inspected. PART III By types of establishments, the inspection visits in 2012 can be categorised as follows: No visits to the expulsion centre, prisons or special schools took place during the reporting year. Experts were used on two occasions in 2012. The experts were a general practitioner and a Rescue Service specialist. The methodology and criteria of the inspection visits on the basis of which the places of detention are assessed were described in more detail in the Chancellor’s 2010 Overview.10 As a result of each inspection visit, a summary is compiled, containing recommendations and proposals to the inspected establishment and other relevant authorities. Summaries of inspection visits are published on the Chancellor of Justice website.11 Data protection requirements are observed when publishing the summaries (i.e. no personal data is disclosed, etc). A short abstract of a summary of an inspection visit is also translated into English.12 In addition to inspection visits, other activities for preventing ill-treatment have been carried out with the aim to raise awareness among staff and individuals held in the places of detention, as well as among the wider public, of the essence of ill-treatment and the need to fight it. In 2012, the following articles and other writings on problems in places of detention, ill8 Rapla County Hospital Foundation and the North Estonian Regional Hospital Foundation provide involuntary emergency psychiatric care as well as nursing care services; Viljandi Hospital Foundation provides both involuntary emergency psychiatric care as well as 24-hour special care services; Koeru Care Centre Foundation provides 24-hour special care service as well as nursing care service. Therefore, the number of inspection visits according to types of establishments is higher. 9 The inspected units in the Defence Forces included the Naval Base, Viru Infantry Battalion, the Headquarters and Signal Battalion, and Kuperjanov Infantry Battalion. 10 See the Chancellor’s 2010 Overview, pp 8–9. 11 Summaries of inspection visits are available online: http://oiguskantsler.ee/en/inspection-visits/2012. 12 Available online: http://oiguskantsler.ee/en/inspection-visits. 3