24 CCB and the NPM had been slowly but steadily developing over the past three years. She found it regrettable that the Hungarian Prison Service Headquarters and the National Police Headquarters had terminated their agreement with the Hungarian Helsinki Committee on the regular inspections of places of detention. She suggested that, within the proper legal frameworks, the NPM should involve their highly experienced staff members not only as preliminary experts but also as external expert members of the visiting delegations. The Head of the Office of the Hungarian Medical Chamber expressed his regret that medical and healthcare students do not receive any law education, as well as his appreciation for the fact that the process related to the patients’ rights leaflet had been started. He mentioned that the general public’s understanding of a place of detention is a prison; however, it is a much broader concept, it covers any and all places where “people are detained.” Education, training, spreading information in this field are important objectives that are fully supported by the Hungarian Medical Chamber. He expressed their gratitude for the opportunity to participate in the CCB’s activities, noting that the HMC would like to continue as a member. The representative of the MDAC welcomed the high level of monitoring that had been reached, in particular in connection with disability-related institutions, as well as the special emphasis that had been placed on the compliance with obligations deriving from international conventions. Cooperation was good in many cases. Since civil organizations have limited access to disability-related and psychiatric institutions, the NPM has played a very important role in calling attention to certain deficiencies. In connection with the CCB’s three-year operation, she pointed out that there remained some issues that had not been solved, e.g., the involvement of the civil organizations’ experts in the inspections. She pointed out that the legal institution of guardianship, while closely related to the inspected area, is not duly represented in the recommendations given in the NPM’s reports. The representative of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union thanked the NPM for the three years of joint work and for the openness to communicate. She noted that the number of disabled persons living in detention is increasing in Hungary. She pointed out that the HCLU as a disability organization does not have access to disability institutions, even in the case of persons with HCLU membership. It shows that, in today’s Hungary, the institutions providing care to persons with disabilities hermetically separate their patients from the outside world. The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union is also open to cooperating through participating in the visits by the NPM. They had already submitted a proposal for locations to be visited next year and looked forward to working together. According to the representative of the Hungarian Psychiatric Association, if certain civil organizations have no right to have access to psychiatric and other disabled patients, it not only calls in question their diagnoses and therapies but also makes their long-term placement uncertain. The question is what could be done in the interest of this group of detainees. In connection with the patients’ rights leaflet, she expressed her objection to the use of informal language, as it is not common (accepted) vis-à-vis patients. In her opinion, it should be thought over. One of the Department’s staff members pointed out that the NPM dealt a lot with the legal institution of guardianship, including entry to the system, medication, and providing information to the persons under care. However, the inspections confirm that rules may not be dismantled immediately. In her view, supported decision-making, if feasible, may be sufficient instead of guardianship. The Deputy Head of the Department reminded the participants that the opportunities of cooperation between the NPM and the civil organizations are provided for in the CCB’s Rules of Procedure, within the legal frameworks specified by the Ombudsman Act. The more intensive form of cooperation advocated by the civil organizations is more in the spirit of the CRPD than the OPCAT. She noted that if the Commissioner was to perform the tasks of the independent mechanism stipulated in Article 33.2 of to the CRPD, opportunities for cooperation in this area between the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights and civil society organizations should be renegotiated in the light of the new tasks.