61 9. Dialog about the measures taken by the NPM Under Article 22 of the OPCAT, “the competent authorities of the State Party concerned shall examine the recommendations of the national preventive mechanism and enter into a dialogue with it on possible implementation measures.” As regards the dialog between the NPM and the competent authorities, in the absence of relevant OPCAT provision, the basic principles defined by the Subcommittee on Prevention shall apply.181 The NPM - should maintain a dialog with “both governmental authorities and institution directors/managers regarding the implementation of recommendations;”182 should establish ”sustainable lines of communication” and “a mechanism for communicating and cooperating with relevant national authorities on the implementation of recommendations;”183 should maintain a dialog that involves “both written and oral exchanges.”184 Although the implementation of the measures recommended by the NPM is not mandatory, the Ombudsman Act compels the measures’ addressees to respond on the substance of the recommendations aimed at eliminating the improprieties, or the threat thereof, uncovered during the inspection. Maintaining continuing and constructive dialog serving the monitoring of the implementation of these measures is a statutory obligation of not only the NPM but also the management of the places of detention, authorities, and other organs concerned. The dialog between the NPM and the addressees of the recommendations is conducted on the basis of the report. The Ombudsman Act regulates in detail the method of monitoring, including the deadlines for responding.185 I maintain a dialog with the addressees of my measures mainly in writing, involving, as necessary, the supervisory organs, as well. There is no legal obstacle to hold oral consultations within the framework of the dialog. During the constructive talks held on January 17, 2016, with the participation of the representatives of my Office, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Human Capacities, the Hungarian Prison Service Headquarters, and the Office of the Prosecutor General, my colleagues explained in detail the reasons for amending the legal regulations on conducting body search in penitentiary institutions. 186 Acting on my recommendation made in the report on the visit to the Forensic Psychiatric and Mental Institution, the Minister of Justice set up an inter-professional working group, with the participation of my colleagues authorized to perform tasks related to the NPM, for reviewing and redressing the systemic problems of compulsory treatment. The working group had two meetings in 2016.187 The civil suit, brought in connection with certain conclusions of my report on the visit to the Cseppkő Children’s Home for damaging the reputation of the Children’s Home, is another form of the dialog between the NPM and the place of detention.188 The provisions of Section 38(1) of the Ombudsman Act constitute the most important legal guarantees of the dialog. Under these provisions, if the authority subject to inquiry or its supervisory organ fails to form a position on the merits and to take the appropriate measure, or I do not agree with the position or the measure taken, I may submit the case to Parliament within the framework of my annual report, Article 11.1(iii) of the OPCAT Clause 22 of the SPT’s Analytical self-assessment tool for National Prevention Mechanisms (NPM), CAT/OP/1 183 Clauses 30 and 31 of the SPT’s Analytical self-assessment tool for National Prevention Mechanisms (NPM), CAT/OP/1 184 Clause 22 of the SPT’s Analytical self-assessment tool for National Prevention Mechanisms (NPM), CAT/OP/1 185 Sections 31 through 38 of the Ombudsman Act 186 See the part of this chapter on the law amendment recommended in my report on the visit to the Somogy County remand prison. 187 See the part of this chapter on the working group for reviewing and redressing the systemic problems of compulsory treatment. 188 See the part of this chapter on the Cseppkő Children’s Home. 181 182