79 14. Summary My task as NPM is to regularly examine the treatment of the persons deprived of their liberty in places of detention as defined in article 4 of the OPCAT, with a view to strengthening, if necessary, their protection against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 228 The ultimate objective of the NPM’s visits is to persuade the authorities and institutions concerned to improve the system of functioning safeguards to prevent all forms of ill-treatment. The specific rules of performing this task are stipulated in Chapter III/A of the Ombudsman Act. The legal environment is suitable for the performance of my tasks. In performing the tasks of the NPM, I may proceed personally or through authorized public servant members of my Office. In 2017, my Office had to face two major challenges while performing the tasks of the NPM. On the one hand, due to the lack of applicants, I could not fill the two physician positions stipulated in Section 39/D(4) of the Ombudsman Act. I employed the physicians participating in the visits on the basis of civil law contracts. On the other hand, staff turnover was rather high among the lawyers participating in the performance of tasks related to the NPM. Two of the six lawyers working in the Department on January 1, 2017, left during the year. These vacancies were filled via a public call for applications, in accordance with the Ombudsman Act’s provisions on gender composition.229 The Department’s staff comprised eight public servants on the average. Visits were carried out by visiting delegations consisting of four to eight members. When setting up the visiting delegations, in addition to the gender balance, I tried to ensure the groups’ multidisciplinarity and include experts in the field of protecting the rights of national, ethnic minorities. Although I have to perform the tasks of the NPM independently, I received valuable support from the members of the CCB, consisting of organizations registered and operating in Hungary, with outstanding practical and/or high-level theoretical knowledge relative to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. I have re-established this body set up in 2014 for three years. Using the data received from the competent governmental organs, my colleagues updated, as of December 31, 2016, the list of places of detention as defined in Article 4 of the OPCAT, originally compiled in the middle of November 2014. Based on the data at my disposal, on December 31, 2016, there were some 4,000 places of detention under Hungarian jurisdiction with a total capacity of about 123 thousand detainees. During the third year of the NPM, I inspected a total of 1,772 detention units at eight places of detention. The average utilization rate of these places of detention stood at 94.3%. Our visiting delegations found the highest utilization rates (over 163%) at Unit I of the Budapest Remand Prison and the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Remand Prison. Although there had been no prior notifications, the visiting delegations were given access to almost all the places of detention without delay. The visiting delegation’s objective was to meet, if possible, all persons deprived of their liberty present at the given place of detention at the time of the visit. The visiting delegations inspected the premises of the places of detention, their furnishing and equipment, documents related to the number, treatment, and conditions of placement of the detainees, made photocopies of some of the documents, reviewed the engagement of the persons deprived of their liberty and conducted interviews with the detainees and the staff members as well. The staff members of the places of detention, with one exception, complied with their obligation to cooperate in performing the tasks of the NPM. 228 229 See Section 39/B(1) of the Ombudsman Act See Clause 16 of the „Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms”, CAT/OP/12/5