15. Summary nizations, registered and operating in Hungary, with outstanding practical and/or high-level theoretical knowledge relative to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. Using the data received from the competent governmental organs, my colleagues updated, as at December 31, 2016, the list of places of detention as defined in Article 4 of the OPCAT, originally compiled by 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 second year of the NPM, I inspected ten places of detention with a total capacity of 3,061 detainees. The average utilization rate of these places of detention stood at 71.6%.235 The visiting delegations found the highest utilization rate (101%) in the Sátoraljaújhely Strict and Medium Regime Prison. Although there had been no prior notifications, the visiting delegations were given access to almost all the places of detention without delay. There was one exception: my colleagues could enter the Holding Facility of the National Bureau of Investigation of the Emergency Response Team of the National Police Headquarters only 30 minutes after having presented their letter of authorization. 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, fully complied with their obligation to cooperate in performing the tasks of the NPM. On the second day of the two-day visit, the Director of the Cseppkõ (Dripstone) Children’s Home took the children on an off-site program, so the visiting delegation could not interview them. To fully implement the objectives set in the schedule of visits, my colleagues conducted interviews with the children on April 26, 2016, within the frameworks of an unexpected, unscheduled visit. The National Preventive Mechanism prepared reports on his inspections, specifying their findings and the conclusions based thereon.236 In 2016, I published ten reports altogether within the frameworks of performing the tasks of the National Preventive Mechanism. The visiting delegations did not detect any circumstances indicative of intentional abuse by the staff of the places of detention, potentially resulting in severe physical or psychological trauma. 235 236 See Schedule 3. See Section 28, Subsection (1) of the Ombudsman Act. 109