proceedings, in compliance with according with the approved activity plan. In view of the above, with the reporting of the delay and the taking of measures to overcome the slowness of the proceedings of the section under review, the intervention of this State body was concluded. Another situation considered by the Ombudsman has been was a complaint lodged by a prisoner in which he argued that his hearing in the conditional release procedure(28) should be recorded in order to strengthen the legal means of defense. The complainant has been informed that, whenever the opposite does not result from CEPMPL, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 154 of the CEPMPL) are applicable to pending proceedings before the Enforcement Sentences Court. The result of the applicable rules is that the law provides adequate documentation of the hearing of the conditional release procedure, in particular as regards evidence produced orally, by not imposing a phonographic or video record, but does not prohibit it either (see Article 99 (1) and 364 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Under the rules on access to justice, the Ombudsman has intervened with the Directorate-General for Justice Policy. The Ombudsman — considering that the value of the cause has direct impact on the amount of the initial and subsequent court fees and, consequently, on the number of installments to be paid by the recipient of legal protection in the form of phased payment of court fees — suggested that it should be ascertained whether or not the contribution supported by the beneficiary (in accordance with the annex to Law No. 34/2004, of 29 July) should be extended for a more or less broad period of time, regarding installment payment, not being enough for that purpose to invoke the safeguard clauses of paragraph 3 of article 16 of Law No. 34/2004, of 29 July, and article 13 of Administrative Rule No. 1085-A/2004, of 31 August. Thus, on the one hand, benefits which become payable after four years have elapsed from the date the final decision on the matter has acquired the force of res judicata shall not be enforceable, circumstance applicable to any situation of legal aid in the form of phased payment, without weighing the overall amount of the costs in relation to the value of the cause. On the other hand, the beneficiary has the power to request the suspension of the phased payment whenever the sum of benefits paid is more than four times the value of the initial court fee, a prerogative that, however, only takes into account the value of the party’s costs due at the end of the proceedings, without taking into consideration the negative impact that the payment of the further benefits may have on the economic capacity of the interested party(29). (28)  See articles 155 and 176 of the Code of Enforcement Prison Sentences and Imprisonment Measures (CEPMPL), published as an annex to the law No. 115/2009, of 12 October, and altered by law No. 40/2010, of 3 September, and by Law No. 21/2013, of 21 February. (29)  See the summary of the complaint procedure Q-2343/16, in Positions adopted 2016, pp. 178-182. 54 |