114 10. Dialogue on the measures taken by the NPM indicated by the detainee rests with the police, and the notification should be done “without unjustified delay”.233 I called the attention of the Minister of the Interior to that, while pursuant to the provisions set out in the Fundamental Law of Hungary, “the rules for fundamental rights and obligations shall be laid down in an Act”, the provision set out in Minister of Interior Decree 30/2011. (IX. 22.) BM of the on Staff Regulations of the Police, which allows the use of handcuffs in the case of dangerous behaviour demonstrated by the detainee, goes beyond the exhaustive list of the Police Act regarding the cases of handcuffing. With a view to remedying the situation, I proposed that the Minister of the Interior clarify the requirements for handcuffing set out in the Staff Regulations for the Police. The Minister of the Interior said that it was allowed for the police staff by Section 48 of the Police Act to apply handcuffs in order to prevent the selfharming, attack or escape of persons who are to be restricted, or who are restricted in their personal freedom, as well as to break their resistance. As long as any circumstance indicated in Section 48 of the Police Act exists, this will create a legal basis for handcuffing. The Staff Regulations for the Police help policemen adopt a decision on the application of means of coercion with an indicative list in Section 41 and the interpretation of the frame-like rule of the Police Act. Since a person escorted by a policeman is also deprived of liberty, his handcuffing will not constitute a specific group of cases. The interpretation of Section 48 of the Police Act, according to which, when considering the application of handcuffing, a policeman may only take into account the current behaviour of the person subjected to a measure, is wrong. In relation to Section 76(5) of the Staff Regulations for the Police, the Minister of the Interior pointed out that in determining the level of threat posed by the detainee, the gravity of the crime that he has committed, the behaviour demonstrated at the time of committing the crime, and his criminal history should be taken into account, as well as any potentially available information on whether an 233 Section 18 (1) of the Police Act (effective from January 1, 2019) stipulates that: “The detainee must be given the opportunity to ask for notifying a relative or another person, he should give a statement in this respect. The obligation to notify the person indicated by the detainee is to be fulfilled by the police, such notice will be given by the police without unjustified delay. If the fact of notification jeopardises the fulfilment of the goal of the measure based on the data generated by the procedure, then such notification should be postponed and should be done when the threat does not exist any more. If it is the person indicated by the detainee rather than the fact of the notification that jeopardises the fulfilment of the goal of the measure, then the detainee should be asked to indicate another person to be notified. If the detainee indicated such a person for the second time related to whom there is no obstacle to notification, the police will notify the person who was indicated later. If the detainee is under legal age or under guardianship, his legal representative should be notified without delay. If the rules of criminal or infraction proceedings are to be applied against the detainee, the special rules regarding these proceedings should be followed.”