78 9. Persons deprived of their liberty at the places of detention visited by the NPM Despite the fact that in a previous report of mine,166 I had already called attention to the fact that the detainees’ right to notify a relative or a third party without delay must be ensured from the first moment of their deprivation of liberty,167 there were no indications in the report on the execution of taking into custody that the officer would have informed the man taken into custody at the Police Department about this right or would have ensured the conditions thereof. The arrestee claimed that he could exercise his right to notify a relative 168 not from the beginning of his deprivation of liberty, but only after his arrival at the Police Department and not personally, but only through the dispatch commander. I requested that the head of the MPHB ensure that arrestees may exercise their right to notify their relatives indirectly at the police departments under his supervision. The fact that there is no legislation to ensure the possibility for detainees to ask to be examined by a physician of their choice jeopardizes the enforcement of the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. I called for the joint action of the Minister of Interior and the Minister of Human Capacities with a view to making it possible for all detainees to request an independent medical examination by the appropriate amendment of Governmental Decree No. 217/1997. (XII.1.) on the execution of Act LXXXIII of 1997 on Compulsory Health Insurance and of Decree No. 56/2014. (XII.5.) of the Minister of Interior on the Order of Police Holding Facilities. According to the Fundamental Law, the “rules for fundamental rights and obligations shall be laid down in an Act”. In contrast, besides the exhaustive list of the Police Act, the provision of the Decree of the Minister of Interior on Police Staff Regulations (hereinafter the “Staff Regulations”)169 regarding the handcuffing of a detainee deemed dangerous by the police officer states one additional reason for handcuffing. In order to remedy the situation, I requested that the Minister of Interior specify the stipulations of the Staff Regulations in connection with handcuffing. In their complaints lodged against the Police Department concerning placement during the two months prior to the visit, in four cases, detainees complained about the degrading stripping in the custody room; in one other case, they complained about the unjustified arrest and its duration, and also 166 167 168 169 Report No. AJB-151/2016. CPT/Inf (2001), Clauses 2, 23 and 30; CPT: Report to the Hungarian Government on the visit to Hungary carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 3 to 12 April 2013 [CPT/Inf (2014) 13], Clause 22. According to Section 18(1) of the Police Act at the time of the visit: “detainees must be provided an opportunity to notify one of their relatives or a third party on the condition that this does not threaten the aim of the measure. If the detainee is not in the position to enforce this right of his or her, the police shall have the obligation of notification.” Minister of Interior Decree 30/2011. (IX. 22.) BM on Staff Regulations of the Police.