126 11. Legislation-related activities of the NPM of detention as at December 31, in mid-December each year, in accordance with Article 4 of the OPCAT. The request for data supply has so far been met by all the bodies that had been contacted, however, the above-mentioned practice is not suitable for ensuring that I become aware, without delay, of the opening, extension or closing of newly established places of detention. In order to remedy the situation, I proposed that the Ombudsman Act be modified in such a way that would require that the government bodies concerned make the data of the places of detention as defined in Article 4 of the OPCAT as at December 31 available to the NPM (the location, address of the place of detention, the number of beds, occupancy data, etc.) by January 31 of the next year. As long as any changes should take place in the number of places of detention after the data supply of December 31 (such as closing down of an institution, opening of a new institution, development of, or increase in the number of units and places, etc.), the government body concerned should be obliged to inform the NPM on these without delay but within 15 days after the change has taken place at the latest. In the opinion of the Minister of Justice, it is exclusively the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights fulfilling the NPM’s responsibilities who is entitled to decide whether a newly established body qualifies as a place of detention as defined by Article 4 of the OPCAT. As long as it is a government body that has to make a decision, during the compulsory annual data supply, on whether the institution that it manages or supervises qualifies as a place of detention, it may qualify as a violation of the provisions set out in the OPCAT if the concept is interpreted in its narrower sense. In each case, it is the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights who should define which bodies qualify as places of detention and it is based on this that he should warn the government bodies concerned to make the relevant data available. As all the bodies that had been contacted met the NPM’s data supply request to date, the Minister of Justice does not think that the proposed amendment of the Ombudsman Act is justified.247 11.1.2. The Subcommittee voiced its concern about the human and financial resources required for the operation of the National Preventive Mechanism, i.e. that although “the task has to be performed by at least eleven staff members, at the time of the SPT visit, the NPM had nine staff members, the positions of the two medical doctors were not filled”.248 The Subcommittee was concerned that “only nine staff members were involved in performing the tasks related to the mandate of the NPM, which affects the complete performance of the NPM’s tasks arising from the Optional Protocol. An effective, regular system of visits extending 247 248 Point I.1 of Justice Minister ’s letter No. XX-AJFO/ID/267/2018/8 dated on February 27, 2019. SPT visit to Hungary between March 21 and 30, 2017: conclusions and recommendations for the National Preventive Mechanism (CAT/OP/HUN/R.2), Section 20.