130 11. Legislation-related activities of the NPM reports can also be examined from such an aspect. In the interpretation of the Budapest Court of Appeal, the only barrier that the court is faced with is that it cannot examine those specific items of evidence based on which the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights drew conclusions, made assessments, established facts or occurrences that ran counter to the laws.255 If the above-mentioned interpretation became general in the judicial legal practices, it would result in a situation where the courts would qualify the conclusions drawn and the measures proposed by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights unlawful in the framework of a lawsuit on personality rights, what is more, they could apply a personality rights-related legal consequence against the Ombudsman if they thought that he did not use an adequately neutral expression related to the judgment, proceedings or omission of the authority that he had examined. Of course, I accept the view that the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights should not be in the position to make any irresponsible statements against anybody, however, in order to defend the independence of the institution, I do not regard it as acceptable if the authorities under review try to get the conclusions of the NPM’s report “revised” by using the legal instruments applied in civil law for the protection of personality rights. It became obvious, related to this case, that the Ombudsman Act contains no provisions whatsoever in defence of the immunity of the NPM. With a view to preventing similar legal disputes, I propose that the amendment of Section 39/A of the Ombudsman Act be considered, which would stipulate that “(2) With regard to the report issued as part of fulfilling the responsibilities of the National Preventive Mechanism, Section 28(4) of the Ombudsman Act has governing effect. As regards the measures specified in the report of the National Preventive Mechanism, the provisions set out in Chapter 11 of the Ombudsman Act shall be applied”. Furthermore, I propose that the following modification of the provisions set out in Section 28(4) of the Ombudsman Act be considered: this provision will restrict or exclude the enforceability of the requirements to be fulfilled by the reports of the Commissioner (including the claims for deleting the individual conclusions or proposals of such reports) before the court. The Minister of Justice thinks that through the amendment of Section 39/A of the Ombudsman Act that I have proposed, the provisions thereof would change depending on the actual context.256 Furthermore, he does not think that such an amendment of the law is necessary which would exclude, or in any way restrict the enforcement of personality rights or 255 256 Ruling No 32.Pf.20.505/2018/7-II of the Budapest Court of Appeal was put on file in my Office under No AJB-2354-22/2019. Section II.1 of Justice Minister ’s letter No. XX-AJFO/ID/267/2018/8 dated on February 27, 2019.