14. Summary of not only the NPM but also the management of the places of detention, authorities, and other organs concerned. The dialogue between the NPM and the addressees of the recommendations is conducted on the basis of the report used as a platform. The Ombudsman Act regulates in detail the method of monitoring, including the deadlines for responding.289 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 the Parliament within the framework of my annual report, and ask the Parliament to inquire into the matter. If the impropriety is of flagrant gravity or affects a larger group of natural persons, I may propose that the Parliament debate the matter before the annual report is put on its agenda. The Parliament shall decide on whether to put the matter on the agenda. The authorities or their supervisory organs under review gave meaningful responses to the measures that I had defined in the 2018 reports of the NPM and no such grave infringements were uncovered by these visits for remedying which I should have turned to the National Assembly. I maintain a dialogue with the addressees of my measures mainly in writing, involving, as necessary, the supervisory organs as well. There is no legal obstacle to holding oral consultations within the framework of the dialogue. 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 authorised to perform tasks related to the NPM, for reviewing and redressing the systemic problems of compulsory treatment. The working group had one meeting in 2018, on September 24.290 Another form of dialogue is the follow-up visits, in the course of which I try to double-check the recommendations made in the report on the previous visit, as well as to re-examine the most problematic fields. Follow-up visits provide an opportunity to discuss the findings of the previous visit and, in their light, the practical implementation of my measures with the personnel of the places of detention. In 2018, while performing the tasks of the NPM, I made a follow-up visit to the Central Penitentiary Hospital in Tököl.291 The civil lawsuit filed for damaging the reputation of the Children’s Home related to some of the findings in my report on the visit to Cseppkô Children’s Home, which was concluded in 2018, meant a special form of dialogue be289 290 291 Sections 31-38 of the Ombudsman Act. See Chapter 10.2. http://www.ajbh.hu/documents/10180/2806238/OPCAT+NMM+utánkövetô+látogatás+ Tökölön_honlap_rövifhír.pdf 145