I. Recommendations relating to legal, institutional and
Structure and independence
As regards the recommendation made in Clause 17 of the report (CAT/OP/HUN/R.2.)
of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter the Subcommittee) on its visit to Hungary, I consider
that the prevailing legal frameworks duly ensure the essential conditions enabling the
Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, responsible to the Parliament, to efficiently perform
the tasks of the National Preventive Mechanism (hereinafter the NPM), specified in the
Optional Protocol (hereinafter the OPCAT) .
Acting on the recommendation made in Clause 18 of the Subcommittee’s report, the
NPM has carried out a mapping exercise to assess the range of activities it ought to undertake
in accordance with the OPCAT, Paris Principles, NPM Guidelines, SPT Assessment Tool 1
and compared it against the current structure and activities of the NPM. The exercise has
shown that, in performing the tasks of the NPM, more attention has to be paid and more
resources have to be allocated to education on the prohibition of torture and other types of
Education and information on the prohibition of torture are not included in the
education and training of persons working in the social and healthcare sectors and persons
participating in the deprivation of people of their liberty. Police personnel with degrees in
law and public administration do possess such knowledge; however, the less educated lower
ranks of police personnel do not receive any education on this subject.3 In the course of its
visits to various places of detention, the NPM has already uncovered the aforementioned
deficiencies and recommended their elimination.
Over the last three years, the NPM has regularly examined if the staff members of the
visited places of detention possess knowledge of the prohibition of torture; however, the
curricula of educational institutions have not been analysed yet. 2 It is for consideration in
what form and within what frameworks the NPM should efficiently tackle this issue. Before
a final decision is taken, the NPM is going to consult the members and staff of other national
preventive mechanisms with a broad range of expertise, operating in the region.
Neither the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights performing the tasks of the NPM
nor his colleagues authorized to act on his behalf have received any threats of reprisal yet. 3
The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights has to report to the Parliament on his activities,
including his performance of the tasks of the NPM. 4 Should the Commissioner for
Fundamental Rights or his colleagues authorized to carry out the tasks of the NPM receive
any threat of reprisal, in addition to lodging a criminal complaint or initiating other official
proceedings, the Commissioner has to apprise the Parliament thereof.
The NPM’s structure is based on the notion that the tasks of the NPM shall be
performed by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights as the National Human Rights
Institution 5 of the UN. When performing the tasks of the NPM, the Commissioner for
Fundamental Rights may proceed, within his discretion, either personally, or through his
colleagues authorized by him to carry out tasks related to the NPM. The Commissioner for
Fundamental Rights shall authorize at least eleven staff members to perform the tasks related
to the NPM. The authorized public servant staff members shall have outstanding knowledge
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, promulgated by Act CXLIII of 2011
Analytical assessment tool for national preventive mechanisms (CAT/OP/1/Rev.1).
NPM Assessment Matrix for NPMs 1.
NPM Assessment Matrix for NPMs 45
NPM Assessment Matrix for NPMs 171