20 consultations with the Government’s representatives (e.g., in connection with performing body search in the penitentiary institutions).66 The high turnover of staff members with a legal degree also seriously hindered the increase in the number of visits. The representative of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee found the report impressive and the problems discussed within the framework of the dialog with the authorities relevant. In her view, the NPM works efficiently irrespective of its limited resources. She suggested the inspection of the transit zones as a prospective priority, since the European Court of Human Rights had established the unlawfulness of the detention of foreign nationals in the transit zone on several occasions, and issued provisional rulings in every case. To her knowledge, the conditions in the transit zones were inhuman; there had been cases when someone had not been given anything to eat. Another representative of the HHC pointed out that the Committee’s right to visit police lock-ups had ceased to exist; it means that the NPM’s responsibility has been increased. The representative of the Menedék added that, although earlier they had deemed it desirable to conduct 25 visits, if they had to choose, they would prefer quality to quantity as long as it leads to the system’s improvement. In his opinion, a consensus had to be reached as regards the minimum number of visits that have to be conducted. In the view of the Deputy Head of the Department, the importance of the reports’ quality is also confirmed by the fact that the Director of the Cseppkő Children’s Home had brought a lawsuit against the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights claiming to have suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as a result of certain conclusions and recommendations contained in the report on the NPM’s visit to the institution. 67 During the visit conducted on March 1 and 2, 2016, the director of the Cseppkő Children’s Home hindered the inspection; therefore, in order to conduct the necessary interviews with the children, the NPM had to pay another visit to the institution on April 26, 2016.68 The Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights employs the sufficient number of highly educated public servants with a law degree. If there is no expert in the Office, the NPM asks the members of the CCB to make recommendations. On several occasions, the NPM involved experts by experience as well. There were cases, however, when the expert by experience was biased against the place of his former detention and its personnel or when the Hungarian Prison Service Headquarters, for security reasons, refused to let a former convict in. That is why the NPM involves experts by experience mainly during the preparation of visits. The recommendations of the CCB are always taken into consideration by the NPM. The preparation and the implementation of one-third of the annual schedule of visits are carried out based on the CCB’s recommendations. In accordance with the SPT’s guidelines, the NPM tries to perform its tasks aimed at preventing torture and ill-treatment in all contexts of deprivation or restriction of liberty, with a view to geographical balance, as well.69 The subjects of follow-up inquiries are determined on the basis of the conclusions of earlier visits and the NPM’s recommendations. When selecting the locations, the NPM also takes into consideration the number of detainees, as well as the number and content of complaints lodged with the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. During follow-up visits, the NPM’s primary objective is to check the implementation of recommendations formulated as a result of earlier inspections; however, there may be cases when the NPM has to assess facts and circumstances not detected earlier. In the field of follow-up visits, cooperation with the members of the CCB is exemplary. See in Chapter 9 on the dialog with the authorities See in Chapter 9 on the dialog with the authorities 68 See National Preventive Mechanism Report № AJB-1603/2016 69 Clause 13 of CAT/OP/27/1 66 67