CAT/OP/HUN/2/Add.1 of the eight visits conducted in 2017; such experts participated in every visit up to the 31 st of May in 2018. The conclusions, critical remarks, and recommendations contained in the participating experts’ written opinions are incorporated in the NPM’s reports. External experts participating in the NPM’s visits in 201738 No. Name of the visited institution Date of the visit External expert 1. Central Holding Facility of the MPHQoB 8 February 2017 0 2. Márianosztra Strict and Medium Regime Prison 13–14 March 2017 one psychiatrist one dietitian 3. Budapest Remand Prison Unit I 28 March 2017 one psychiatrist one dietitian 4. Platán Integrated Social Institution of Bács- 16–17 May 2016 Kiskun County one psychiatrist one dietitian 5. Psychiatric Ward of the Balassa János Hospital of Tolna County one psychiatrist one dietitian 6. Nagymágocs Castle Home of the 12–14 September one physician Aranysziget Integrated Retirement Home of 2017 (geriatrician) one Csongrád County dietitian 7. Holding facility of the Fejér County Police Headquarters 19 October 2017 8. Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Remand Prison 28–30 November one psychiatrist 2017 one dietitian 31 May and 1 June 2017 one psychiatrist one dietitian Total: In 2017, external experts participated in 7 visits, i.e., in 87.5 % seven physicians of all visits and seven dietitians 23. On 11 April 2018, within the frameworks of a workshop held in the Office, the NPM met with non-lawyer experts who participated in previous visits, with prospective expert participants, and the representatives of the members of the CCB. In order to increase the efficiency of cooperation, the participants of the workshop discussed the lessons of the visits conducted so far. 24. The recommendation made in Clause 31 of the Subcommittee’s report was implemented during the meeting of the CCB held on 5 September 2017. The participants of the meeting discussed the recommendations of the representatives of civil society organizations, presented on 22 March 2017, during the joint meeting of the NPM, the Subcommittee, and the CCB. As regards the number of visits, it was mentioned that the fundamental-rights-related analyses contained in the NPM’s reports serve as an example for the entire profession; therefore, their significance goes far beyond the places of detention concerned. It should also be recalled that, on an annual basis, the reports published in the capacity of the NPM contain nearly one-third of the legislative proposals put forward by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, requiring thorough theoretical preparations. 25. So far, more than one-third of the places of detention on the NPM’s schedule of visits have been chosen on the recommendation of the members of the CCB. As far as follow-up visits are concerned, the NPM and the member organizations of the CCB de facto follow up one another’s visits. The participants also discussed the possibility of holding the CCB’s meetings outside the Office. 38 6 The psychologists participating in the visits were all public servants of the Office authorized to perform the tasks related to the NPM under Section 39/D, Subsections (1) and (4) of the Ombudsman Act.