CAT/OP/HUN/R.2 Commissioner’s role as the official NPM of Hungary was established under Chapter III/A 2 of Act CXI of 2011 and came into effect in January 2015. 11. Since its establishment in 2015 the NPM has carried out 15 visits to places of 3 deprivation of liberty. Due to the limited nature of the targeted budget support, the Commissioner had to allocate its own resources to the preparation for performing the tasks of the NPM. This amount was provided by Commissioner’s Office through the 4 transformation and reorganization of the operations of the Office. 12. The Subcommittee was informed that compared to 2015 the budget of the Commissioner’s Office has increased; however, there are no explicit provisions in the regulating acts regarding the earmarked funding of the NPM. In this connection the SPT underlines that the lack of budgetary independence negatively impacts the independent functioning of the NPM. 13. The Civic Consultative Body was established in 2014 for a period of three years to provide advice to the NPM. It is composed of representatives of independent organizations which are either invited, such as Hungarian Medical Chamber, the Hungarian Psychiatric Association, the Hungarian Dietetic Association and the Hungarian Bar Association, or selected as a result of a public call, such as Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Menedék - Hungarian Association for Migrants, and Mental Disability Advocacy Center. According to the NPM Annual Report, the CCB provides comments and suggestions on the content of the NPM’s annual schedule of visits and inspection priorities, working methods, reports and other publications, and the training plan for NPM's members. 5 14. The SPT welcomes the fact that NPM has been operational for more than a year, has conducted several visits to places of deprivation of liberty in Hungary and published its first annual report. III. Recommendations to the national preventive mechanism A. Recommendations relating to legal, institutional and structural issues Structure and independence 15. As a general observation, the Subcommittee notes that the national preventive mechanism does not have an identity distinct from Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, not only with respect to its legal framework but also in relation to its institutional framework and guarantees of independence. The Subcommittee is particularly concerned about the lack of functional independence of the mechanism within the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights. While the Optional Protocol does not provide for a unique model for an Optional Protocol-compliant mechanism structure, it is imperative for the mechanism that it is able to carry out its mandate in accordance with the 6 principles of the Optional Protocol, as reflected in the Subcommittee’s NPM guidelines 16. Even though the decision about the institutional format of the NPM is left to State parties’ discretion, it is imperative that the legal acts regulating the work of the NPM must be in full compliance with the OPCAT, the NPM Guidelines7, and Paris Principles8 as well as with the compilation of advice provided by the Subcommittee in response to requests 9 from NPMs annexed to its ninth annual report. 2 Act CXI of 2011 (n 48) Chapter III/A. ‘Comprehensive Annual Report of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights on the Activities of the OPCAT National Preventive Mechanism in 2015’ (May 2016), 38. 4 ibid, section 2.4. 5 ‘Comprehensive Annual Report of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights on the Activities of the OPCAT National Preventive Mechanism in 2015’ (May 2016) 20. 6 Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms (CAT/OP/12/5). 3 7 Idem. Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions. 9 CAT/OP/C/57/4, annex. 8 4