Key issues
- The amendments to the Imprisonment Act, which came into force on 1 January 2024, are more in accordance with the international recommendations than before, however, still not to the sufficient extent.
- Custodial institutions still have a problem with guaranteeing privacy, implementation of supplementary measures of segregation and unfounded restriction of communication rights.
- Guaranteeing privacy in custodial institutions.
Political and institutional developments
On an international level the implementation of the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment is carried out by the UN Committee against torture (CAT) along with its Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT), the UN Special Rapporteur and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). On a national level, the Chancellor of Justice fulfils the role of the institution preventing ill-treatment.
In 2023, the CPT inspected Estonian custodial institutions: detention houses, police stations, prisons, psychiatric hospitals and hospitals’ psychiatric departments. According to the report, the overall incarceration rate in Estonia has decreased, but it is still too high due to insufficient use of alternative punishment measures. There is also a prison staff shortage, which negatively affects the well-being of detainees.
No instances of physical ill-treatment were detected at detention houses, however, according to the detainees the staff had used derogatory language about their nationality or ethnic origin. The right to immediate access to healthcare is also still not guaranteed in detention houses. Problems were also detected in psychiatric care establishments: at Viljandi Hospital a patient was subjected to long-term segregation without a legal basis and at three hospitals the supervision over implementation of mechanical restraint was insufficient.
In 2024–2025 the Chancellor of Justice conducted inspection visits to several detention facilities. Her findings generally coincided with those of the CPT, but she also found other shortcomings. For example, in the acute and subacute care departments of Ahtme Hospital, there were no doors on the toilets or they were not lockable, and restrained patients were pressured into wearing diapers, even though they would have been able to use other solutions themselves or with the help of a staff member. There were also problems with the staff’s proficiency in the official language, and the healthcare provider limited the patient’s communication with their loved ones. The Chancellor of Justice also noticed unjustified restriction on the right to visit at AS Hoolekandeteenused Tallinn’s Merimetsa tee 3 unit, there were also problems with the procedure for isolating patients, documentation, and the safety of the furnishings in the isolation room. The report also set a reminder that telephone and computer use should be prohibited only in exceptional cases.
Problems with ensuring privacy during hygiene procedures occurred not only in detention facilities but also, for example, in care homes (Kastre[4], Tammiste, Jõõpre[5]). However, the Elva care home was commended for respecting the fundamental right to privacy. The Chancellor of Justice nonetheless drew the attention of the aforementioned institution to the need to make the residents’ bedrooms more homelike and cozy, and emphasized that bedridden patients must be turned regularly to prevent bedsores.[6] All inspected care homes were reminded that a care institution is the home of the people living there and must provide a homelike and personalized environment while taking into account the residents’ need for privacy.
Viru prison and Tallinn prison had changed their previous practice. Human dignity is now respected more in the course of carrying out body searches, the practice of imposing punishment cell sentences has been changed and the length of punishment cell sentences has been reduced. The visit rooms had also been made more family-friendly. The punishment cells lacking basic bedding also need to be updated. Prisons should also take the prisoners belonging to vulnerable groups more into account when it comes to activities, communication, opportunities for movement and other meaningful ways of spending time.
The Chancellor of Justice found that Viljandi police station may be difficult to navigate in a wheelchair, and that Võru and Valga police buildings’ windows excessively restrict sunlight. Additionally, there were problems with ensuring privacy in both Viljandi and Võru, as the hygiene corners were not sufficiently secluded.
At the detention centre, the Chancellor of Justice found that it was not always possible to assess the state of health of an alien arriving at the centre in a timely manner, and there were also shortcomings in the capability to provide medical care, and there were instances where people were kept in a separate room for medical reasons for longer than allowed. Even though the room intended for short-term visits had been made more child-friendly, the Chancellor of Justice identified numerous problems in ensuring the general right of communication.
The Maarjamaa Education College, which provides closed child-care services, received guidance on involving young people more — both in drawing up the menu and in agreeing on common rules of conduct. The Chancellor of Justice also emphasized that a young person staying in a closed child-care institution must be guaranteed the protection of the secrecy of communications and the possibility to speak on the telephone in private, out of the hearing range of the institution’s staff.[7]
Legislative developments
In spring of 2024 the Riigikogu adopted the amendments to the Imprisonment Act,[8] which made several changes that promoted reintegration of prisoners into society and brought the provisions of the Imprisonment Act in line with international recommendations. A large portion of the amendments directly or indirectly serves the purpose of Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights, as prisoners’ access to the internet and mobile phones was expanded, registered partners were added to the list of persons allowed on long-term visits, and long-term visits are now also granted the prisoners in reception wards and prisoners serving disciplinary penalties in punishment cells.[9]
The most deserving of positive attention are the significant changes in legal provisions regulating serving disciplinary penalties in punishment cells (solitary confinement). Previously, the maximum allowed length of disciplinary penalty in punishment cells (solitary confinement) significantly exceeded the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.[10] The amendments to the Imprisonment Act brought the legal provisions into better compliance with the international custodial standards, the positions expressed by the ECHR and the international experts (including the CPT), although unfortunately not completely,[11] as according to the international recommendations, minors should not be sentenced to disciplinary punishment in punishment cells.
From now on, the length of a single disciplinary punishment in a punishment cell may not exceed 14 days (previously 45 days) for an adult and 3 days (previously 20 days) for a minor who is a prisoner.[12] A restriction on consecutive execution of sentences of disciplinary punishment in a punishment cell was also established – upon reaching the maximum consecutive days of the sentence permitted (14 days for an adult prisoner, 3 for a minor who is a prisoner), the execution of the punishment cell sentence shall be suspended for a reasonable period of time, which may not be less that 48 hours.[13] Such an order is to enable the person to recover from the effects of a punishment cell.[14]
Noteworthy public discussions
Several cases where public authorities or private persons fulfilling public duties acted in a manner that called into question compliance with Article 3 of the Convention made the news and caused fierce debate.
In the Pihlakodu case, society’s sense of justice was shaken by the fact that the prosecutor’s office failed to initiate criminal proceedings against Pihlakodu nursing home,[15] even though both the Social Insurance Board’s supervisory acts and the evidence collected in criminal proceedings identified several shortcomings in the institution’s work organisation. However, the prosecutor’s office believed these shortcomings were not causally linked to the sexual crimes alleged against the former caregiver.[16] The general outrage was also caused by the actions of the lawyer assigned to the victims, who did not make the circumstances sufficiently clear to themselves or analyse the legal situation carefully enough, which is why the civil lawsuit was not filed and therefore they did not fully act in the interests of the victims. The public was also astonished by the prosecutor’s out of touch comment saying that not every involuntary sexual act may cause mental and physical harm.[17] The incident, on one hand, points to the need for a review of legal norms regulating the liability and supervision obligations of nursing homes, but on the other hand also to the need for a paradigm shift in the mindset of some of Estonian legal community, especially in understanding the importance of rights, dignity and protection of victims.
The HashFlare case also drew public attention, raising questions about shortcomings of the US prison system – the plaintiffs Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin claimed that a person imprisoned in the United States is subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. The courts did not agree with the applicants, and the individuals were extradited to the US.[18]
In summer of 2025 Eesti Ekspress published two articles describing the questionable behaviour of the city of Tallinn in assigning and implementing guardianship, including in communicating with the wards.[19] In both cases, there was reasonable doubt about ensuring decent treatment.
On 18 June 2025 Estonia and Sweden signed a so-called prison lease agreement enabling Sweden to use Estonia’s prison infrastructure for a total of up to 600 prisoners. Although the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs deems the agreement to be in accordance with the European human rights framework,[20] such a solution is not in fact without its issues. It is worth considering how, in the face of the emerging language barrier, to guarantee the foreign-language-speaking prisoners sufficient opportunities for activities, meaningful communication, meetings with their loved ones and spending time in a meaningful way, when already now, when there are only a few foreigners in prisons in Estonia, ensuring such rights is quite a challenge for our prison system.[21]
Case study
During an inspection visit to the acute and subacute care department of the Ahtme Hospital, the Chancellor of Justice criticised the fact that a potty chair had been brought onto the ward for a female patient in a wheelchair, however, there were no screens, dividing curtains, or other means of providing separation. The patient said carrying out hygiene tasks was disturbing for her as she shares a room with a wardmate. Nor could she lock the door of the ward from the inside – so anyone could enter the ward if they wanted to. The doors of the toilet or the washrooms of the acute care were not lockable either. The Chancellor of Justice explained that such an arrangement does not guarantee dignified treatment of the patient – everyone should be able to carry out hygiene procedures in private even if the patient’s ability to understand their surroundings has decreased. It is worth noting that these shortcomings were present already during the inspection visit carried out in 2015.
Recommendations
- Develop clear legal provisions governing restraint and body-searches.
- Review legal provisions governing the liability and supervision obligations of nursing homes (in order to prevent recurrence of the Pihlakodu incident).
- Rule out placing minors in punishment cells – this prohibition should be reflected both in the Imprisonment Act as well as in prisons’ practice.
- Improve access to medical care in detention facilities.
[4] Õiguskantsler. 2025. Kontrollkäik SA Hooldekodu Härmalõng Kastre kodusse, 19.08.2025.
[5] Õiguskantsler. 2025. Kontrollkäik Tammiste Hooldekodusse, 27.08.2025.
[6] Õiguskanstler. 2025. Kontrollkäik SA Elva Haigla hooldekodusse, 15.08.2025.
[7] Õiguskantsler. 2025. Kontrollkäik Maarjamaa Hariduskolleegiumi Emajõe õppekeskusesse, 27.08.2025.
[8] Riigi Teataja. 2024. Vangistusseaduse ja teiste seaduste muutmise seadus (vangistusseaduse kaasajastamine ja digilahenduste kasutusele võtmine), 22.03.2024.
[9] Riigi Teataja. 2025. Vangistusseadus. § 22 lg 4, § 32 lg 41, § 25 lg 1, § 281, 26.06.2025.
[10] ÜRO narkootikumide ja kuritegevuse büroo. 2015. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners: the Nelson Mandela Rules (Kinnipeetavate kohtlemise standardite miinimumreeglid: Nelson Mandela reeglid). Reegel 44, reegel 45 lg 2, 17.12.2015.
[11] The CPT as well as the UN Committe on the Rights of the Child condemn imposition of solitary confinement in case of prisoners with mental disabilities and children. The amendments to the Imprisonment Act shorten the maximum solitary confinement in case of underage prisoners to 3 days, but it doesn’t abolish it.
[12] Riigi Teataja. 2025. Vangistusseadus. § 63 lg 11 p 4, lg 2, 26.06.2025.
[13] Riigi Teataja. 2025. Vangistusseadus. § 65 lg 1, 26.06.2025.
[14] Eelnõude infosüsteem. 2023. Vangistusseaduse, karistusseadustiku, kriminaalhooldusseaduse ja täitemenetluse seadustiku muutmise seaduse eelnõu (vangistusseaduse kaasajastamine ja digilahenduste kasutusele võtmine) seletuskiri. VangS § 65, 05.06.2023
[15] Kohtumenetlus abihooldustöötaja osas on veel pooleli.
[16] Prokuratuur. 2025. Karistusseadustik ei võimalda prokuratuuril Pihlakodu AS suhtes uurimist alustada, 27.06.2025.
[17] K. VainKüla. Eesti Ekspress. 2025. Pihlakodu pääseb puhtalt. Uurimine näitas, et vägistamine ei teinud dementsetele naistele halba, 09.04.2025.
[18] ERR. 2024. Ringkonnakohus jättis krüptoärimeeste USA-le väljaandmise jõusse, 22.04.2024.
[19] A. Orav. Eesti Ekspress. 2025. Marko mängib malet, loeb lehti, käib ujumas. Tallinnale „tundus“, et mees ei tule üksi toime, 07.06.2025; K. Vainküla. Eesti Ekspress. 2025. Kogu kuu peale 50 eurot. Ametnike soovitus muutis jõuka pensionäri elu tragöödiaks, 04.06.2025.
[20] Justiits- ja Digiministeerium. 2025. Eesti ja Rootsi allkirjastasid vanglarendilepingu, 18.06.2025.
[21] Õiguskantsler. 2025. Õiguskantsleri aastaülevaade 2024/2025.
