55 Despite the fact that all visits were carried out without prior notice, the visiting delegations were provided unrestricted access to all places of detention, and staff members of the places of detention concerned fully complied with their obligation to cooperate. The visiting delegations inspected the premises of the places of detention, checked their furnishing and equipment, inspected the documents and made copies of certain documents, monitored the joint activities of the persons deprived of the liberty and conducted interviews with them and the staff as well. Reports were prepared on these visits, “specifying their findings and the conclusions based thereon”.126 The visiting delegations did not find any circumstances indicative of intentional abuse by the staff resulting in grave physical or mental injuries with the exception of juvenile detainees serving a sentence of imprisonment. The average occupancy of the places of detention inspected was 83.26%. The visiting delegations found the highest utilization rate, 156%, in Fót, in the Károlyi István Children’s Center’s Home for Unaccompanied Minors, where extra space would be added in order to prevent crowdedness. The visits by the NPM uncovered serious anomalies related to inhuman or degrading treatment in the GRRC of Debrecen (gender composition of the security staff), the Therapeutic House (mandatory contraception), the Closed Psychiatric Ward of the Merényi Gusztáv Hospital and the Central Prison Hospital (general conditions). In my reports, I made recommendations that serve the purpose of eliminating and preventing illtreatment of persons deprived of their liberty. I made altogether 152 recommendations in 2015. I suggested that measures should be taken by the head of the place of detention127 on 89 occasions and by the supervisory organ128 on 45 occasions; I initiated proceedings by the competent prosecutor129 through the Prosecutor General on one occasion. I recommended to draft or amend a legal regulation on 17 occasions.130 Recommendations made in the course of performing the tasks of the NPM by addressee Year 2015 Initiating legislation: 17 occasions (11%) Action by the supervisory organ: 45 occasions (30%) See Section 28, Subsection (1) of the Ombudsman Act See Section 32, Subsection (1) of the Ombudsman Act 128 See Section 31, Subsection (1) of the Ombudsman Act 129 See Section 33, Subsection (2) of the Ombudsman Act 130 See Section 37 of the Ombudsman Act 126 127 Action by the competent prosecutor: one occasion (1%) Action by the institution concerned: 89 occasions (58%)