The representative of the management of OÜ Corrigo replied that the centre had made a proposal to the National Institute for Health Development to amend the contract so as to increase the number of staff. Three additional positions of a carer were requested. According to the representative of the management, the centre would organise its work in a way as to ensure the constant presence of at least three adult staff members with the young people. In addition, the representative of the centre promised to improve the opportunities of the children for recreational and other meaningful free time activities corresponding to their age and contributing to their development. 5.3. Right to the confidentiality of messages and privacy Conversations with the children and staff revealed that the range of people with whom children communicate during their stay at the centre is significantly limited, in most cases involving only a few family members. The range of people with whom children are allowed to communicate during their stay at the centre has been agreed with the child’s legal representative. Moreover, all the phone calls that children have with their next of kin take place in the presence of the staff. Many children with whom the Chancellor’s advisers spoke during the visit admitted that the presence of a member of staff during the phone call was annoying and they could not freely talk with their next of kin. The wish of the centre to prevent children from having contacts with persons who could harm their well-being and the need to check, for that purpose, that the conversations are not harmful for the children is understandable. However, these objectives can be achieved by other measures which are less intrusive in terms of the rights of the child. For example, it would be possible to check at the beginning of the call with whom the child is talking and during the call observe the child from a distance or from behind a soundproof glass in order to assess the child’s emotional state and interfere if necessary. As regards letters, it is possible to check that the letter is not addressed to a person with whom the child is not allowed to communicate. As regards internet communication, checking the identity of a conversation partner without checking the content of the message might be more complicated but certainly not impossible. For example, it is possible to create a separate communication environment where only certain person can communicate, or use other similar solutions. Jõhvi Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation Centre lacks a legal basis to restrict the confidentiality of messages and privacy of children. Already in 2010 the Chancellor proposed to the head of the centre to stop restricting the children’s right to the confidentiality of messages and to privacy without a legal basis. In justified cases, the Chancellor recommended to conclude a separate agreement with the children and their guardians for restricting the correspondence of the children. Under § 126(2) of the Family Law Act, the right of custody over person includes the right to determine which third persons can have access to the child. A decision of a parent is binding on third persons whose access to the child has been prohibited by the parent. Thus, if a parent (or other legal representative of the child who has the right of custody over the child) finds that it is in the interests of the child to restrict the child’s communication with third persons, the conclusion of the relevant agreement with the centre may be justified. However, it should be considered on a case by case basis and the restriction on communication with third persons should not be a general rule. 31