3.2. The meetings of the CCB Medium Regime Prison, and if in the event of such hindrance, it was possible to visit the institution once again. The Head of Department said that the visiting delegation did not see the operational team at work, but none of the detainees objected to them. The visiting delegation examined the use of the security isolation ward; what is more, he spoke to a detainee who was held there at the time of the visit. The members of the visiting delegation recorded the information gained during the interviews in subreports, checked the operation of the cameras, analysed their footage, and took pictures. One of the pictures taken on site is included in the annex of the report. The visiting delegation has to make sure that no one is put at a disadvantage as a result of the on-site inspection, thus the observations of the visiting delegation must be written down in the reports with great care. In this specific case, the tattoos of the detainee shown in the picture (in the annex of the report) were obscured in order to prevent his identification. Although the visiting delegation did not notice any anomalies regarding the functioning of the cameras, video surveillance is prohibited in certain facilities (e.g. showers, lavatories), which are, nonetheless, crucial with a view to the prevention of ill-treatment. The staff members of the Department will strive to emphasize the circumstances of camera use even more in their reports in the future. The visiting delegation encountered no hindrance in their activities in Márianosztra. One of the reasons for that is that penitentiary organs are aware of their obligation to cooperate with the visiting delegation during the visit of the National Preventive Mechanism. On the other hand, it is possible that the head of institution appointed after the visit of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee had a different attitude than the earlier chief officer. The NPM, too, has recourse to that method: if it is unable to carry out its tasks fully while visiting a certain place of detention, it returns to complete it at a later, unannounced date. This was the case, for instance, with Cseppkô Children’s Home. It is an integral part of the NPM’s practice to request further information in writing if necessary. The Deputy Head of Department stressed that the NPM’s report is based mostly on interviews made on site. The document contains the information shared by the interviewees with the members of the visiting delegation. Pursuant to Article 20 of OPCAT, places of detention are obliged to provide unrestricted access to their facilities and rooms for the NPM. The reports refer to the abovementioned issue only if a particular place of detention does not meet this obligation or meets it only with a delay. The visiting delegation was able to access the Márianosztra Strict and Medium Regime Prison without delay, and was allowed to move in its premises without restriction. In penitentiary institutions, the legality of treatment is reviewed by the Prosecution Service, and this competence must also be respected by the 33