Dh-Dd(2020)607

SECRETARIAT / SECRÉTARIAT

SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRÉTARIAT DU COMITÉ DES MINISTRES

Contact: Zoe Bryanston-Cross Tel: 03.90.21.59.62

Date: 06/07/2020 DH-DD(2020)607

Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Meeting: 1383rd meeting (29 September - 1 October 2020) (DH)

Item reference: Action Report (03/07/2020)

Communication from Hungary concerning the group of cases GUBACSI v. Hungary (Application No. 44 686/07) * * * * * * * * * * *

Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.

Réunion : 1383e réunion (29 septembre - 1 octobre 2020) (DH)

Référence du point : Bilan d’action (03/07/2020)

Communication de la Hongrie concernant le roupe d'affaires GUBACSI c. Hongrie (requête n° 44686/ 07) (anglais uniquement) DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Group Action Report of 3 July 2020 in the cases of

Gubacsi v. Hungary (Appl. No. 44686/07, judgment of 28/06/2011, final on 28/09/2011), Borbála Kiss v. Hungary (Appl. No. 59214/11, judgment of 26/06/2012, final on 26/09/2012), Csonka v. Hungary (Appl. No. 48455/14, final judgment of 16/04/2019), Haász and Szabó v. Hungary (Appl. No. 11327/14, judgment of 13/10/2015, final on 13/01/2016), Kovács v. Hungary (Appl. No. 21314/15, final judgment of 29/01/2019), László Károly (No.2.) v. Hungary (Appl. No. 50218/08, judgment of 12/02/2013, final on 12/05/2013), M.F. v. Hungary (Appl. No. 45855/12, judgment of 31/10/2017, final on 05/03/2018), R.S. v. Hungary (Appl. No. 65290/14, judgment of 02/07/2019, final on 02/10/2019), Réti and Fizli v. Hungary (Appl. No. 31373/11, judgment of 25/09/2012, final on 25/12/2012), Tarjáni v. Hungary (Appl. No. 29609/16, judgment of 10/10/2017, final on 10/01/2018), Terge v. Hungary (Appl. No. 3625/15, final judgment of 27/02/2018), Nagy v. Hungary (Appl. No. 43441/15, final judgment: 26/05/2020)

Case description

1. This group of cases concerns ill-treatment (between 2000 and 2016) by law enforcement officers, lack of adequate investigations in this respect, violations of the right to life or failure to investigate possible racist motives for ill-treatment (substantial and/or procedural violations of Articles 2, 3, and 14 in conjunction with Article 3). The issue under Article 14 is examined in the context of the Balázs group (No. 15529/12).

Individual measures

2. The rules regarding criminal proceedings are prescribed by a) Act XIX of 1998 on criminal proceedings (hereinafter: “the Old CPA”) in cases of abuses, where the report on the given abuse was adjudged before 30 June 2018, or b) Act XC of 2017 on criminal proceedings, which is applicable from 1 July 2018 (hereinafter: “the CPA”)

Section 29 a) of the Old CPA stipulated – as part of the rules regarding the tasks and powers of the prosecution, that – except for the cases where military criminal proceeding shall be conducted – the prosecution has exclusive power to conduct investigations on crimes committed by the commissioned officers of the Police. As part of the sub-chapter of the CPA regarding the exclusive investigation powers of the prosecution, Section 30 a) of the CPA contains the same provision.

In case of criminal proceedings started as a result of actions affected by the Court’s judgments, in the course of the possibilities for the prosecution to take investigation measures, one cannot disregard the statute of limitation provisions of the actually DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

prevailing criminal code, which may prevent further investigation actions – also considering any eventual interruption of the passage of time in calculating the passage of the statute of limitation. Therefore, one must examine the question of statute of limitation.

a) According to the Act IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code, which was in effect until 30 June 2013 (hereinafter: “the Old CC”) – with certain exceptions – the enforcement of a penalty becomes time-barred when the time equal to the longest applicable punishment for the given crime – but unless this law otherwise provides – not less than three years lapses. According to Section 226 of the Old CC, the crime of mistreatment in official proceedings was punishable with up to three years imprisonment. Pursuant to Section 35 of the Old CC the statute of limitation shall be interrupted by any act of the authorities acting in criminal proceedings against the perpetrator in connection with the crime, and the period of limitation shall restart on the day of the interruption.

b) Since 1 July 2013, Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code (hereinafter: “the CC”) applies, pursuant to Section 26 (1) of which the enforcement of a penalty becomes time-barred when the time equal to the longest applicable punishment for the given crime – except for the cases set forth in Sections 26 (2) and (3) of CC – not less than five years lapses. According to Section 301 of the CC, the crime of mistreatment in official proceedings is punishable with up to five years imprisonment, and the punishment is up to eight years if the crime is committed in a gang. Pursuant to Section 28 (1) of the CC, the statute of limitation shall be interrupted by any action of the court, the public prosecutor, the investigating authorities, or - in international cases - by the minister in charge of the judicial system or the competent foreign authority taken against the perpetrator in connection with the crime. The period of limitation shall restart on the day of the interruption.

3. In the case of Gubacsi v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (10,500 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (3,750 EUR) was paid to the applicant on 23 December 2011 (amount paid: 4,327,328 HUF; exchange rate: 306.83).

4. In the case of Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non- pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (5,000 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (3,000 EUR) was paid to the applicant on 21 November 2012 (amount paid: 2,250,480 HUF; exchange rate: 281.31).

Since the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Police Department learnt about the ECHR judgment given in the above case, no new fact, data or circumstance have emerged necessitating the repeat of the formerly conducted internal investigations (as a result of which the police measure complained of was found to have been lawful, professionally adequate and justified) or the conduct of new proceedings.

No individual measures were taken in the case, but the situation was analysed for general, preventive purposes. In order to avoid similar cases, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Police Department devotes special attention to the continuous training and evaluation of the police staff, and since the case at issue young police officers have performed their service duties together with more experienced colleagues. DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

5. In the case of Csonka v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (8,000 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (2,400 EUR) was paid to the applicant on 4 July 2019 (amount paid: 3,353,896 HUF; exchange rate: 322.49).

6. In the case of Haász and Szabó v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non- pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (15,000 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (5,053 EUR) was paid to Ms. Haász on 13 April 2016 (amount paid: 6.230.868 HUF; exchange rate: 310.52).

The applicants’ representative, Mr. G. Szabó sent submissions to the email address of the Central Complaint Office of the Control Service of the National Police Headquarters, which submissions were forwarded by the Complaint Office to the Veszprém County Police Department on 9 October 2018 so that action be taken where needed. In the submissions, the applicants filed damages claims in relation to a police measure taken by a police officer of the Balatonfüred Police Department.

The judgment contained no circumstance necessitating a change in the position of the Veszprém County Police Department, therefore – in the absence of any legal ground for payment of damages – the claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages were found to be ill-founded. The legal representative was informed of this fact.

7. In the case of Kovács v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants (9,000 EUR to each applicant) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (6,000 EUR to the applicants jointly) with 1,485 EUR tax was paid to the applicants on 25 April 2019 (amount paid: 14,011,737 HUF; exchange rate: 322.22).

8. In the case of László Károly (No.2.) v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (5,000 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (3,000 EUR) was paid to the applicant on 25 June 2013 (amount paid: 2,372,640 HUF; exchange rate: 296.58).

9. In the case of M.F. v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (10,000 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (4,724 EUR) was paid to the applicant on (amount paid: 4,696,662 HUF; exchange rate: 318.98).

10. In the case of R.S. v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (9,000 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (4,080 EUR) was paid to the applicant on 17 January 2020 (amount paid: 4,389,517 HUF; exchange rate: 335.59). Default interest was not paid to the applicant because of delayed communication of information required for payment.

11. In the case of Réti and Fizli v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non- pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (2x5,000 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (3,350 EUR) was paid to the applicants on 12 February 2013 (amount paid: 3,889,001 HUF; exchange rate: 292.06).

DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

12. In the case of Tarjáni v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (7,500 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (3,000 EUR) was paid to the applicant on 3 April 2018 (amount paid: 3.281.670 HUF; exchange rate: 312.54).

Following the incident, the Békés County Police Department prepared training material for the police staff of the Department, which also contained case studies on procedures related to police measure tactics.

13. In the case of Terge v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (6,000 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (2,000 EUR) was paid to the applicant on 25 May 2018 (amount paid: 2.557.680 HUF; exchange rate: 319.71).

14. In the case of Nagy v. Hungary, payment of just satisfaction (10,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 3,150 EUR in respect of costs and expenses) is ongoing.

General measures

15. At its 1324th meeting (September 2018) the Committee of Ministers invited the Hungarian authorities to provide information on the following general measures aiming at preventing similar violations:

I. Information on the effective implementation of administrative measures, in particular on the number of police vehicles that are in fact equipped with sound and image recording devices:

16. The use of computer-connected video-recording devices installed in police service cars makes possible to visually record the police actions taken. In the framework of a project started in 2014, image recording devices were installed in 1178 police cars. 199 of the Police’s service vehicles are installed with functioning audio and video recording devices and the number of service vehicles installed with devices, which is capable of making video recording only, is 295.

17. Under section 42(1) of Act No. XXXIV of 1994 on the Police (henceforth: Police Act), in relation to a police action and in the context of performing their service tasks police officers may make image or sound records or audio-visual records of a person subjected to a measure, or of his environment or of any relevant circumstance or object. Where such records are not needed for the purposes of the procedures specified in the Police Act or for any other purposes indicated in that Act, they shall be stored for 30 days from the date on which they were taken and shall be processed in the integrated electronic document and case management system used by the Police (“Robotzsaru”, in English “Robocop”).

18. In certain cases, specified in Instruction No. 31/2015. (XII. 17.) ORFK of the National Police Commander on Certain Rules Governing the Use of Image Recording as well as Audio-Visual Recording Devices Installed in Police Cars, police officers performing service must start to make such records, namely: a) as soon as and while operating sirens and lights together, or only lights on their police vehicle DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

b) when using roadblocks or checkpoints c) when a moving car is stopped by a moving police car d) when a violation of the law is perceived. In addition to the above mandatory cases, records may be made in other cases, too: a) upon decision of the police officer taking a measure, where the making of such records is warranted by the cause, nature or possible outcome of a police action, in particular, by the need to apply a coercive measure, or by the conduct, number, composition or former conduct of the person or persons subjected to the police measure, provided that the measure is taken in the angle of view of the device installed in the police car; b) upon the instruction of the police inspector of the police unit, or of the superior police officer, or of the police officer on duty at the police operational command centre.

19. Records can be taken on the police measure, on the person subjected to the measure and on his environment, or on a circumstance or object having relevance in the case. In order to ensure proper provision of information, before commencing a police action or - where prior information provision would endanger the success of the action - on completion of the action, the person subjected to a police measure must be informed of the fact that records are going to be taken or have been taken, and of the duration of managing such data.

20. In addition to the use of image recording devices, the use of body cameras placed on police officers’ clothes is also allowed by the law. In 2018 70 body cameras were purchased for traffic-policing police units, which are used by highway traffic-policing units and county-level traffic-control units (altogether by 30 police units). The use of body cameras ensures that traffic-policing measures are properly carried out. They record the taking of the police measure and the interaction between the police officer and the person subjected to a police measure. Such cameras can record videos, images and also sounds. The primary aim of such recordings is to supply evidence in the investigations of complaints against police actions, but it must also be emphasised that the very presence of such devices, similarly to the image recording devices installed in police cars, prompts persons subjected to police measures to act in a law-abiding manner.

21. On 25 July 2018 a special training was held regarding the use of body cameras, on which the participants received information on traffic patrol, legal and data handling issues, and on techniques of uploading and saving data on Robotzsaru. Following the training, a four- page professional memorandum was issued by the Traffic Administration High Department of Traffic Administration of the Law Enforcement Directorate of the Hungarian National Police Headquarters, which, inter alia, provides as follows: a) the staff must be made aware that the cameras serve the carrying out of the police services and support the police measures and prevention and discovery of corruption is not the aim wished to be achieved; b) the implementation and tactics of the particular measures should be carried out in accordance with the applicable laws and the regulatory means of public; c) upon taking the actual measures, the persons concerned must be informed of the fact that a video recording is taken of the given measure, which may be duplicated; d) following the starting of the application in real live practice, the staff should be gradually involved in the task implementation and possibly such a person shall be assigned with the use of body camera, who had earlier learned how to handle it; DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

e) video recordings shall be made primarily of police actions, typically from the moment of getting off the police vehicle until the end of the given action; f) in case of actions made by a staff member who is installed with a body camera, he / she should record all the actions; g) use and reasons for pre-recordings and post-recordings should be evaluated in the course of the periodical reports; h) it is also possible to take still photos besides video recordings and also to record the infringements of law and also to record voice notes, followed by police actions, therefore in a particular case both the violation and the police action can be recorded; i) in order to assess the applicability, the body cameras should also be used in limited visibility circumstances, in the evening; j) it is preferable that the body camera is installed on the police officer securing the action rather than on the police officer carrying out the given action, in order to make evaluation of the use of body cameras and the evaluation of the recordings made by using them; k) in order to improve sound quality and reduce the negative effects, it is advisable to carry out the measures in parking or other safe places; l) in order to prepare an appropriate quality recording, the body camera should be installed at the height of the chest; m) badge or legend indicating that video and audio recording is being made is neither mandatory nor prohibited; n) in the course of using the devices a person having “User” level clearance is not capable of deleting scenes from the device, but review / replay of the recording is possible; o) co-ordination of using the body cameras should be administered by a person having an “Admin” level clearance, who, has the appropriate access to make the necessary settings as well; p) the camera may take recordings of varied picture resolution and quality, and these settings may also be made by the persons having “Admin” level clearance, a “User” has no access to make such settings; q) the system of downloading the data via USB connection should be organised at local level, recordings may only be made on the internal storage space of the camera, the capacity of which should in theory be sufficient to support a 12-hour shift; r) following the service, the data shall be uploaded onto a computer and then to the Robotzsaru, no recording shall be left on the camera after the uploading, the camera’s memory is automatically erased after the uploading to the Robotzsaru; s) pursuant to Section 42 of the Police Act the data handling period is 30 days from the date of recording with those of a body camera (the data handling deadline creates an obligation to safekeeping the data rather than setting a maximum time limit for data handling), the Robotzsaru keeps record of the data handling and erase them automatically.

22. Video recordings shall primarily be made of Police measures, typically from getting off the vehicle until the finishing of the given measure [as provided in subsection e) above]. All measures made by a person wearing a body camera shall be recorded, it is, however, not expected that all staff members shall use body cameras. In the course of using these cameras – similarly to other recording devices – it is unavoidable to make accidental recordings or the recording does not begin despite the handler’s intention, which, however, does not release him/her from his/her obligation to carry out the given Police measure. Making a successful recording is not a precondition to take the given measure. Subsequent revision or random review of the recordings may be made by the leaders by DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

using the camera itself or following the upload by accessing the Robotzsaru. The leaders may also change the camera settings [as provided in Subsection o) above].

II. Information on the monitoring of interviews by law enforcement officers, and of the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty such as for example through systematic video recording of interrogations as well as obligatory installation of recording devices in police detention facilities; highlighted in this respect the importance of the concrete recommendations made by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) following its visits:

23. Under section 42(5c) of the Police Act, in order to maintain the order of detention, to prevent criminal offences, regulatory offences and disciplinary misconducts and to protect bodily integrity, the Police may install in the custody suites, save for the holding cells, toilets and sanitary premises, electronic surveillance equipment capable of making, forwarding and recording image, sound, or image and sound. Under section 43(5d) of the same Act, if a detainee formerly attempted to commit suicide or self-harmed himself by endangering his bodily integrity, or if based on a circumstance related to the detainee’s detention it can reasonably be presumed that the detainee is going to commit such acts and therefore his behaviour needs to be continuously monitored in order to protect his life or bodily integrity, the Police may install surveillance equipment capable to forward image or image and sound, but not capable to record sound and image, at the police premises where the persons brought before the police are actually held, as well as in the holding cells of the custody suites. Records made under section 42(5c) of the Police Act, and the data contained in them, can only be used in criminal proceedings or regulatory offence proceedings or disciplinary proceedings instituted for a criminal offence or a regulatory offence or a disciplinary misconduct committed at the scene of the recording, or for the purposes of examining in administrative proceedings the lawfulness of a police measure or exercising the rights of the concerned person [42(6b) of the Police Act].

24. Point 100 of Instruction No. 14/2015. (VII. 21.) ORFK of the National Police Commander on the Rules Governing the Construction of Police Custody Suites provides that closed CCTV systems must be installed in all custody suites, whereas Instruction No. 3/2015. (II. 20.) ORFK of the National Police Commander on the Rules Governing Police Custody Service provides that closed CCTV systems must continuously be monitored, and in order to inform the persons entering a custody suite of the fact of image and sound recording at the premises via CCTV system, warnings must be displayed thereof. Points 3-4 of the Instruction on the Rules Governing the Construction of Police Custody Suites provide that in case of renovation, reconstruction or conversion of existing custody suites the rules laid down in the Instruction are applicable, subject to the technical possibilities, to the premises to be renovated, reconstructed or converted, but if the existing custody suites are suitable to guard and detain the detainees safely, without endangering their health or the prison staff’s health, no renovation, reconstruction or conversion is needed. As seen from the above presentation and from point 2 of the Instruction on the Rules Governing the Construction of Police Custody Suites, recording devices must only be installed in newly constructed custody suites, since in respect of custody suites the Police Act merely allows for the possibility of using electronic surveillance devices capable of making, forwarding and recording image, sound, or image and sound, whereas in respect of holding cells the Police Act allows for the instalment of surveillance devices not capable of recording records under strict criteria. DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

25. The CPA maintains the possibility of making image, sound and audio-visual recordings of the various procedural acts, and in several cases such records must be made by the authorities. Under the CPA, audio-visual recording is mandatory in the following cases: a) in case of a procedural act necessitating the involvement of a person below the age of 14 [section 88(1) d/ of the CPA] b) where a person below the age of 18 is involved in a procedural act on account of his or her being a victim of an offence committed against the freedom of sexual life or against sexual morals [section 89 (4) b/ of the CPA] c) where a procedural act is attended by a person by way of means of telecommunication [section 125(2) of the CPA].

26. In addition to the cases specified above, under Instruction No. 41/2018. (VII. 11.) ORFK of the National Police Commander on the Rules Governing the Use of Image and Sound Recording Technical Devices Specified in the Act on Criminal Procedure, image and sound recording must be made a) of seizures, where the seized item remains in the custody of the person concerned or the seized item is given into the custody and handling of certain organs; b) where the seized item is sold or destroyed, provided that in respect of the given item sample-taking is inconceivable and visual recording in itself is not suitable to show the relevant characteristics of the given item; c) where a person unable to read and write is involved in a procedural act; d) where the suspect involved in the procedural act or his counsel has filed a motion to that effect, provided that they have advanced the related costs, and the financial directorate having jurisdiction at the place of the procedural act has confirmed the receipt of the money; e) in any other cases when the law provides it or a person has powers under statutory authorisation to give instructions in relation to a procedural act to the person proceeding in the given case.

27. In addition to the cases when recording is mandatory, the member of the authority proceeding in a given case may order to make image and sound recording of a given procedural act. Under section 358(4) of the CPA the suspect, his counsel and the injured person can also request that a procedural act be recorded, provided that they, respectively, advance the costs of such recording.

28. Relying on the possibilities offered by information technology, the CPA allows the use of means of telecommunication for speeding up proceedings. Under section 120(2) of the CPA, where means of telecommunication are used, direct and reciprocal contact between a scene specified by the prosecutor's office or the investigation authority and another scene is ensured by a) image and sound recording, or b) uninterrupted sound recording. Telecommunication system is primarily used to speed up proceedings and to protect the persons involved in the proceedings, but such means also increase, to a significant degree, the transparency of the proceedings. The available means are suitable not only for conducting interrogations but also for recording sound and image. Moreover, under the above presented provisions of the CPA, in certain cases sound and image recording is obligatory.

29. In the telecommunications rooms of the penitentiary institutions and of the regional and local police stations a uniform technical system is installed. The technical devices produce excellent-quality sound and image. Recording sound and image simultaneously from various camera-angles facilitates the authentic documentation of the conduct of the procedural acts. Remote hearing was first introduced at the courts and then, gradually the legal institution of remote interrogation was applied in the detection and investigation phase of the criminal proceedings conducted by police authorities. The number of remote interrogations held at penitentiary institutions and police stations, as endpoints, has grown significantly each month: in March and April 2019 the number of remote interrogations was 67 and this figure almost doubled in May 2019, in which month altogether almost 117 procedural acts were performed via means of telecommunication.

30. Thus, if the statutory conditions are met and its use is justified, police organs rely on remote interrogation in performing their tasks. Under section 122(1) b/ of the CPA, where the use of means of telecommunication is technically feasible, the prosecutor's office and the police must, save for the exceptions specified in section 122(2) of the CPA, use such means in case of a procedural act necessitating the presence of a detained witness or defendant. Due to this rule, as a result of the increased use of means of telecommunication, the number of cases when the members of the investigation authority conducting an interrogation meet in person the detained witness or defendant is decreasing, since in such cases the detained person is not transported from the penitentiary institution to any interrogation venue.

31. Instruction No. 22/2010 (OT 10.) of the National Police Commander on the Implementation of the Recommendations of the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment also aims to suppress ill-treatment by police officers:

- Instruction No. 22/2010 (OT 10.) provides that the provisions contained in sections 15-16 of the Police Act prescribing the requirement of proportionality and prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in carrying out police actions or performing procedural acts, must form part of the trainings held for police officers, and of the briefings held for persons joining the Police (point 4 of the Instruction).

- As to its material scope, Instruction No. 22/2010 (OT 10.) is applicable to the execution of detention of persons whose freedom of movement and/or residence has been restricted, and to related tasks (point 2 of the Instruction).

- According to point 5 of Instruction No. 22/2010 (OT 10.), if a detainee complains of ill-treatment or cruel, inhuman treatment during his preliminary medical examination, • the complaint must be recorded in minutes, and in the minutes the detainee must be warned about the legal consequences of the offences of false accusation, false witnessing and misleading the authority, and the fact that the detainee has taken note of the warnings must be recorded in the minutes; • the detainee must be familiarised with his outpatient treatment report or medical report and the minutes, and all necessary information must be provided to him, via interpreter, where necessary, and the documents to be issued under this point must be offered for signature by the detainee who, however, cannot be obliged to sign them. Where a detainee denies signing the documents, this fact must also be recorded. DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

- Point 17 of Instruction No. 22/2010 (OT 10.) provides that complaints of police measures and proceedings allegedly constituting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment must be investigated with priority and special care by the heads of the county-level police departments, or the head of the Standby Police, or the director of the Airport Police Directorate.

- The complaints and the related investigations, the results of and the experience gained from the checks affected in respect of the complaints and all related proposals are summarised in annual reports drafted by the mentioned police organs. These reports are evaluated from a professional point of view by the Criminal High Directorate and the Policing High Directorate of the National Police Headquarters, and their findings are summarised in partial reports (points 20-21 of the Instruction).

- Based on the partial reports, the Control Service of the National Police Headquarters annually evaluates respect for human rights in the country (point 22 of the Instruction), therefore it can be stated that this mechanism is an appropriate legal institution for enforcing and forwarding detainee complaints, and the respective police and other state and civil organs function properly and adequately.

32. Where investigations are conducted by the prosecution, to monitor the treatment of detained persons is the task of the Investigations Supervisory Department of the Central Investigations Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. The Central Investigations Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and the subordinate investigations public prosecutor's offices transmit all submissions containing a treatment-related complaint or request to the public prosecutors in charge of supervising the lawfulness of detention and respect for detainee rights at the county-level public prosecutor's office having jurisdiction at the seat of the penitentiary institution complained of, irrespective of whether upon the detainee's submission any other measure is going to be taken by the public prosecutor's office responsible for prosecutorial investigations.

33. The technical conditions for recording interrogations via sound and image recording devices are, for the most part, ensured at the Central Investigations Chief Public Prosecutor's Office and the subordinate regional investigations public prosecutor's offices. Where a person to be interrogated motions such recording, the interrogation shall, in all cases, be recorded and this fact shall be included in the minutes, in conformity with the rules of the CPA. In the Central Investigations Chief Public Prosecutor's Office building located at 38 Könyves Kálmán körút, in the premises where persons brought before the police are held, a surveillance camera mounted above the entrance monitors the happenings at the premises and stores the records for about 12 days. So far no extraordinary incident warranting the use of those records has taken place.

34. The Police does not have records regarding the present number of devices installed in Police cells to record hearings. It should be specified if the request for the information relates to devices installed in the cells for making video or audio recordings or for monitoring only. We do not have statistics regarding the number and ratio of actually recorded hearings in cells.

III. Information on implementation of capacity-building and awareness-raising measures, in particular on their frequency, the content of the curricula and the number of beneficiaries:

35. a) The Supervisory Service of the National Police Headquarters organises a training once a year in the given subject matter, entitled: “Complaints, public interest disclosures and submissions against Police measures”, and this topic is discussed in the trainings entitled “Professional training of the Supervisory Service staff and the regional supervisory service”, held by the National Police Headquarters twice a year.

b) The professional skills on avoiding Police abuse are part of the professional trainings organised by the Educational and Training Centre for service commanders and district commissioners.

The material of trainings for service commanders includes the conflict management in the course of the work of the service commander, conflict solving techniques, which help handling the stress situations coupled with the Police measures, in order to an efficient, conflict-free, impartial implementation of the tasks of the Police. Human rights and Police measures, requirements regarding Police measures (4 classes), use of verbal and non- verbal means of communication, use of communication in crisis situation (action analysis) and its practice (2 classes) have special emphasis in the course of the training.

Communication, conflict handling and action analysis (4 classes) are also included in the material of the trainings for district commissioners, and there is a panel (of 4 classes) entitled “the possibilities of conflict handling in multicultural environment and in case of violence within the family”.

In the course of theoretical and practical trainings special emphasis is devoted to the notion that the policeman must always must and entitled to act by respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, impartially, lawfully, according to laws, professionally, proportionally, without prejudice.

In the past years the above professional skills for service commanders were taught in average four times a year with 200 participants and for district commissioners twice a year, for 100 persons.

IV. Outline of the pertinent statutory and secondary legislation aimed at preventing ill-treatment by law enforcement officers during arrest, transfer and custody and a firm message of “zero tolerance” of ill-treatment

36. To prevent and sanction ill-treatment by police officers requires the highest-level criminal law action, therefore all such conducts constitute criminal offences and are threatened under the law with imprisonment, that is, with the most severe penalty. All the three statutory provisions sanctioning the various forms of police ill-treatment, namely section 301 of the CC governing ill-treatment in official proceedings, section 304 of the same Act governing forced interrogation, and section 304 of the same Act governing unlawful detention treat such conducts as criminal offences punishable with imprisonment lasting from 1 to 5 years, by which sanctions the legislature wish to emphasise the danger of such unlawful conducts.

37. In addition to the means available under substantive criminal law, certain procedural legal institutions are also aimed at effectively suppressing such conducts. As presented above, the CPA, contains: a) the rules governing the recording of procedural acts via sound or image recording or continuous audio-visual recording, and b) the legal institution of participation in a procedural act via means of telecommunication.

38. Instruction No. 22/2010 (OT 10.) of the National Police Commander on the Implementation of the Recommendations of the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, presented above in point 17., also aims to suppress ill-treatment by police officers.

39. The rules allowing for persons in the custody or under the supervision of an authority to maintain uncontrolled contact with the outer world, and the rules ensuring the use of legal remedies also aim to suppress police ill-treatment. The right of contact and the right of free (uncontrolled) communication with the competent international organisations, including the United Nations, are ensured by the following laws:

• Section 11(3) and (6) of Act No. CCXL of 2013 on the Execution of Punishments, Measures, Certain Coercive Measures and Regulatory Custody:

"(3) Where a convict or a person detained on other grounds is not a Hungarian national, he is entitled to contact the diplomatic or consular services of his state and to maintain contact with the representatives of those services. Where the convict or the person detained on other grounds is a stateless person, he is entitled to contact the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

(6) In matters related to his detention and in any other matters, the convict or the person detained on other grounds may maintain contact with his representative both in writing and orally, and may contact his representative during visits in person under control, while respecting the order of the organ where the detention is executed. Personal contact between the convict or the person detained on other ground and his representative in relation to a complaint made by the convict or the person detained on other grounds about the proceedings of the given penitentiary institution to a human rights organ set up under an international treaty, in particular to the European Court of Human Rights shall not be controlled, unless the representative is a relative of the convict or the person detained on other grounds."

• Section 5(1) d/ of Act No. LXXX of 2007 on Asylum and section 7(1) of Minister of Justice Decree No. 27/2007. (V. 31.) IRM on the Rules of the Execution of Detention Ordered in Alien-Policing Procedure:

"section 5(1) A person seeking asylum is entitled: d/ to contact the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or other relevant international organizations or civil society organizations for the duration of the asylum procedure."

"section 7(1) The detainee may maintain contact under security supervision, without control DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

d/ with members of the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and with members of the human rights bodies of the United Nations or the Council of Europe, delegated for that purpose."

• Section 10(1) d/ of Minister of Home Affairs Decree No. 29/2013. (VI. 28.) BM on the Rules of Execution of Asylum Detention and Asylum Bail:

"section 10(1) A person seeking recognition may maintain contact, without control,

40. Under section 10(1) of Act No. CCXL of 2013 on the Execution of Punishments, Measures, Certain Coercive Measures and Regulatory Custody, in cases related to the execution of his punishment or detention, the convict or the person detained on other grounds (person under involuntary treatment, under the effect of a coercive measure, placed in confinement for non-payment of a procedural fee, placed in regulatory custody) may file a request and thereafter a complaint against the decision given on the request, and may submit any other remedies available under the law. Where further remedies are allowed under the law, the convict or the person detained on other grounds shall be informed thereof.

Under section 10(5) of the same Act, the convict or the person detained on other grounds may a) contact directly the public prosecutor's office supervising the lawfulness of the execution of punishments, measures, certain coercive measures and regulatory custody, and may seek to be heard by a public prosecutor, b) contact directly the ombudsman for fundamental rights or a staff member authorised to perform the tasks related to the national preventive mechanism set up under Article 3 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, c) file a request or complaint to an international rights protection organ expressly entitled thereto under an international convention promulgated by an Act.

Under section 6 of the same Act, the lawfulness of such execution shall be supervised by the public prosecution according to the rights and obligations specified in the Act on the Prosecution Service.

41. Persons arrested for reasons of public security or brought before or escorted to the police under the Police Act may file a complaint against the measure in conformity with the rules laid down in chapter IX of the Police Act.

42. Regulatory custody-related issues not regulated separately shall be governed, under section 73(14) of Act No. II of 2012 on Regulatory Offences, Regulatory Offence Procedure and Regulatory Offence Registration System, by the above presented DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

provisions of Act No. CCXL of 2013 on the Execution of Punishments, Measures, Certain Coercive Measures and Regulatory Custody.

43. Under 61(3) g/ of Act No. II of 2007 on the Admission and Right of Residence of Third- Country Nationals, persons detained in secure accommodation have the right to file a complaint (as well as an objection and a request) to the representative of the authority. Such detainees can also make a complaint, irrespective of the Police, to the authorised legal representatives of foreign embassies, to organisations providing legal assistance, and to international organisations. Public prosecutors in charge of supervising the penitentiary institutions carry out checks in the secure accommodations every two weeks, in the course of which respect for detainees' rights, including, first of all, the lawfulness of detention, proper provision of information, food supply, housing situation, treatment, etc. are examined. Public prosecutors regularly consult with the detainees, who can submit complaints. Where the prosecutor finds a violation of law, he makes an objection to the head of the police organ responsible for the detention, who shall take immediate action for terminating the unlawful situation.

44. Under section 2(6) of Act No. CXI of 2011 on the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights, the tasks related to the national preventive mechanism set up under Article 3 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment promulgated by Act No. CXLIII of 2011 shall be performed by the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights.

45. In this respect it should be noted that the legal framework has been changed as of 27 February 2020 (in line with the expiration of the mandates of the Independent Law Enforcement Complaint Committee members), and from that date these tasks are implemented by the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights, not by the Independent Law Enforcement Complaint Committee. A new chapter entitled “examination of complaints regarding police actions”, was included in the Act on the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights:

“Chapter III/B

Examination of complaints regarding Police actions

Section 39/F

In the course of examining a complaint (hereinafter: “complaint regarding the Police”) submitted pursuant to Section 92 (1) of the Act XXXIV of 1994 on the Police (hereinafter: “the Police Act”), the procedural rules of Chapter III regarding the proceedings of the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights shall be applied by taking into account the special rules set forth in the present Chapter.

Section 39/G

(1) In the course of examining a complaint regarding the Police, the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights may act either in person or through his or her staff member authorised to examine complaints regarding the Police. DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

(2) At the hearing held pursuant to Subsection c) of Section 22 (1) no person other than the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights and the person being heard may attend, without the permission of the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights. (3) The staff member of the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights authorised to examine a complaint regarding the Police may have access to classified data in the course of implementing the tasks regarding the examination –, even without a user permission required by the Act on classified data. (4) The staff member of the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights authorised to examine a complaint regarding the Police may not participate in the examination of a complaint and in the preparation of the report thereon, if he or she would be excluded from the given case under the Act on Public Administration Proceedings.

Section 39/H

(1) The Commissioner of Fundamental Rights may ask for information regarding Police related complaints submitted pursuant to Subsection a) of Section 92 (1) of the Police Act and if the preconditions to his or her proceeding are met, he or she notifies thereon the Police and the Police unit in charge. The person who submitted the complaint may, within eight days from the receipt of such information request that following the examination of the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights his or her Police related complaint is adjudged by the Chief of the National Police, the director general of the organisation in charge of the internal measures regarding prevention and detection of crimes, the director general of the organisation for counterterrorism or the general director of the organisation for aliens policing. The Police unit in charge must suspend its proceeding upon receipt of the notification from the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights. (2) If the person submitting the complaint requests within the deadline in Subsection (1) above that his or her Police related request is adjudged by the Chief of the National Police, the director general of the organisation in charge of the internal measures regarding prevention and detection of crimes, the director general of the organisation for counterterrorism or the general director of the organisation for aliens policing, the given Police unit shall refer the case to the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights. If the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights notifies the Police unit in charge that the deadline has passed without result, the given Police unit must continue its proceeding. (3) The Chief of the National Police, the director general of the organisation in charge of the internal measures regarding prevention and detection of crimes, the director general of the organisation for counterterrorism and the general director of the organisation for aliens policing shall provide the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights with a monthly report on the Police related complaints referred to in Subsection a) of Section 92 (1) of the Police Act with content required by the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights.

Section 39/I

The complaint regarding the Police pursuant to Subsection b) of Section 92 (1) of the Police Act may be submitted within one year from the date of the Police action.

Section 39/J

(1) The Commissioner of Fundamental Rights shall, without preparing a report refuse the Police related complaint under Subsection b) of Section 92 (1) of the Police Act and the Police related complaint referred to him or her under Section 39/H (2) hereto, if a) it is late, b) manifestly ill-founded, and therefore there is no ground for starting an examination proceeding, c) it is repeatedly submitted and does not include any new fact or data as to the merits of the case, or d) the person, who submitted the Police related complaint requested that his or her name is not disclosed and the examination is not possible without such a disclosure. (2) The Commissioner of Fundamental Rights prepare a report on his or her examination, which includes the facts revealed, the statements and conclusions on the basis of these facts and the measure in accordance with Chapter III. (3) If the examination does not reveal any concern regarding fundamental rights or does not relate to any material question from points of view of fundamental rights, the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights may refuse the Police related complaint without making a report. (4) The Commissioner of Fundamental Rights shall submit the report or the refusal under Subsection (3) above to the Chief of the National Police, the director general of the organisation in charge of the internal measures regarding prevention and detection of crimes, the director general of the organisation for counterterrorism or to the general director of the organisation for aliens policing.

Section 39/K

(1) The Chief of the National Police, the director general of the organisation in charge of the internal measures regarding prevention and detection of crimes, the director general of the organisation for counterterrorism and the general director of the organisation for aliens policing shall bring his or her decision on the Police related complaint by taking into account the report of the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights under Section 39/J within thirty five days in a public authority proceeding. The deadline starts on the day following the day of delivery of the report of the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights. (2) If the decision of the Chief of the National Police, the director general of the organisation in charge of the internal measures regarding prevention and detection of crimes, the director general of the organisation for counterterrorism and the general director of the organisation for aliens policing deviates from the report of the Commissioner of Human Rights, a reasoning must be given for such a deviation. (3) The Commissioner of Fundamental Rights may enter the lawsuit for challenging the decision of the Chief of the National Police, the director general of the organisation in charge of the internal measures regarding prevention and detection of crimes, the director general of the organisation for counterterrorism and the general director of the organisation for aliens policing referred to in Subsections (1) and (2) as intervener.

Section 39/L

46. Under section 3(2) of Act No. CLXV of 2013 on Complaints and Public-Interest Disclosures, bona-fide complainants and persons submitting public-interest disclosures as well as complainants giving untrue information unintentionally, shall not suffer any disadvantage for making the complaint or the public-interest disclosure. Section 260/A of Act No. II of 2012 on Regulatory Offences, Regulatory Offence Procedure and Regulatory Offence Registration System governs the regulatory offence of "persecution of a person making a public-interest disclosure", which falls in the regulatory offence competence of the Police, and is committed by "anyone who makes a disadvantageous measure against a person having made a public-interest disclosure."

47. Statements from chiefs of the Police, which have also appeared in the press in recent years, have highlighted on several occasions and stated that “police actions shall be carried out by respecting the principles of lawfulness, professionalism and proportionality, with special emphasis on the human treatment of illegal migrants, respecting their human dignity”. This declaration and other declarations with similar content present obvious and clear expectations for the Police staff.

48. In addition to the foregoing, the principle of “zero tolerance” was clearly formulated in connection with a Police action of 8 April 2018, when in Izsák, a person concerned with a Police action deceased in the Police detention cell following a Police action. The Commander of the National Police himself held an extraordinary press conference in connection with this case, and a press release was also issued. In the course of the press conference, the Commander of the National Police said that “for me it is unacceptable, impermissible and intolerable that a Police action ends like this in the case of the Police operating in a state where the rule of law prevails”, giving thereby a clear message for all the members of the Hungarian Police. At the press conference it was also declared that a criminal proceeding was started immediately, and that the service contracts of the policemen in charge were immediately terminated by their commander. A public statement in connection with the same case included that “the Chief of the National Police is investigating this case to reveal the facts. The Hungarian Police is operating within the ambit of the rule of law. Nobody, even the policemen exercising public power is above the law.”

49. Measures taken in order to secure independent medical examination:

Following the detention, a statement must be obtained from the detainee as to any of his or her injuries or eventual complaint. The Police takes care of the detainee’s placement and DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

the services at a level that is necessary to prevent any health injury. Medical service shall be provided to any detainee, who is injured, sick or is in need of urgent medical help. If necessary, the Police takes measures in all cases to obtain medical service with the help of an ambulance doctor, who is independent from the authority, who – if needed – takes care of carrying the patient to a medical institution suitable for treating inpatients. It is to be noted that in the past years no complaint has been made because of an inappropriate medical treatment or because of an examination by a doctor who was elected by a person other than the detainee.

Instruction No. 22/2010 (OT 10.) of the National Police Commander includes the following provisions in connection with the medical examination:

“5. If the detainee is complaining about abuse or cruel or inhuman treatment in the course of his or her preliminary medical examination: a) the complaint shall be included in minutes and the detainee must be warned of the consequences of the crimes of false accusation, false witnessing and misleading the authority and this warning must also be included in the minutes together with the detainee’s acknowledgement of the warning; b) the ambulance sheet or the medical report issued by the doctor and the minutes must be made available to the detainee and he or she must be given the necessary information – with the help of an interpreter, if necessary –, the detainee should sign the relevant documentation, but he or she must not be obliged to do so. If he or she refuses the signing it must be included in the minutes too. 6. In the course of the preliminary medical examination, the copy of the ambulance sheet or the medical report, which is delivered by the doctor, besides the prosecutor in charge of statutory supervision, to the commander in charge of detention – as provided by law –, must be delivered to the chief guard in a closed and sealed envelope in order to comply with the data protection requirements, and this document will be submitted by the chief guard to commander in charge of detention on an expedited basis. 7. The doctor’s documents and other medical documentation of the detainee may be reviewed by the defence attorney with the written permission of the detainee and may make copies thereof at his or her own costs, provided that the given documents are not part of the criminal or misdemeanour proceedings serving as a basis for the detention. 8. If it does not infringe the requirements of guarding and the requirements of personal safety, upon the request of the doctor or the detainee, it must be secured that the guards remain beyond hearing distance during the medical examination or the treatment. The chief guard is entitled to decide on this question – with the consent of the representative of the authority accompanying the detainee to the medical examination. 9. The commander in charge of detention shall make sure that the detainee is heard in case of any eventual abuse against him or her. The minutes made of this hearing and all the minutes prepared before the detainee’s reception shall be sent without delay to the prosecutor in charge of the statutory supervision.”

Pursuant to Section 17 of the Instruction No. 22/2010 (OT 10.) of the National Police Commander, the leaders of the police headquarters at county level and the leader of the Budapest Police Headquarters, the Commander of the Riot Police (“Készenléti Rendőrség”) and the Director of the Police Directorate of the Airport must treat or have DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

treated with special emphasis and utmost care the complaints concerning cruel inhuman or degrading measures or proceedings by the Police.

The complaints submitted by the detainees and subsequently examined and the results and experience of the supervisions in connection with this matter shall be included in an annual report by the Police organisations, which is analysed from professional aspects by the Law Enforcement Directorate General of the National Police Headquarters (“ORFK Rendészeti Főigazgatóság”) and the Criminal Directorate General of the National Police Headquarters (“ORFK Bűnügyi Főigazgatóság”) and they prepare shared reports. On the basis of these reports and shared reports the Supervisory Service of the National Police Headquarters prepares each year an assessment of the status of appreciating and respecting human rights in the country.

Special attention is paid to respect human rights at the Police organisations. The complaints are delivered to the relevant Police organisations, which are obliged to act thereupon, and the problems are fully examined. The examination and adjudication of the submissions are made at several levels and right to appeal is also available before courts.

Pursuant to Subsections b) – c) of Section 34 (3) of the Order of the Minister of Interior No. 56/2014 (XII. 5) the doctor prepares a medical report, if he or she notices any trace of external injury on the detainee or if the detainee complaints about abuse, and in this medical report the doctor makes a statement of the likely reason for the injury and also records therein the detainee’s statement as to the reason for the injury.

According to Section 38 (2) of the Order No. 30/2011 (IX. 22) of the Minister of Interior on the Police Staff Regulations any report regarding the use of coercive device shall – inter alia – include whether any injury occurred, how serious it is, and what happened to the injured person, has there been any treatment, if not, what was the reason. Except for the use of handcuffs, if any coercive device was used in the course of accompanying, the commander of the policemen in action shall examine without delay whether all the requirements regarding the use of coercive devices were complied with (Section 38 (3). If an injury was caused in the course of using a coercive device, in the course of this examination the commander in charge shall hear the person who was subjected to the use of coercive device and the person who was present at the action and whose hearing would help in the fact finding, provided that the given person agreed to his or her hearing [Subsection a) of Section 38 (4)].

On the basis of the above provisions the necessary examination shall be made even in case there is no complaint.

V. Statistical information on the number of complaints of ill-treatment, the number of disciplinary and criminal proceedings carried out in this regard and on their respective outcome:

50. The Police has data since 1 April 2013 in connection with the condemnations in connection with mistreatments, unlawful detention, third degree, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, which is the date, when the Order No. 11/2013 (III. 29) of the Chief of the National Police regarding the tasks of data on disciplinary proceedings entered into effect. On the basis of this Order the Statistical System of Disciplinary Matters (hereinafter: “SDM”) includes data regarding the disciplinary sanctions applied against DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

the Police staff members. Based on the SDM, the number of crimes and disciplinary cases broken down by years were as follows:

Crimes (mistreatment in official proceedings, third degree, unlawful detention) mistreatment in third degree unlawful detention official proceedings

1. years Total condemnation postponing the indictment acquittal /termination Total condemnation acquittal /termination Total condemnation reprimandthe by prosecution acquittal /termination 2. 2013 33 9 1 23 4 2 2 3 1 1 1 3. 2014 34 6 - 28 15 4 11 4 - - 4 4. 2015 29 3 - 26 7 4 3 7 1 - 6 5. 2016 34 9 - 25 1 - 1 4 1 - 3 6. 2017 29 16 - 13 1 - 1 1 - - 1 7. 2018 21 10 - 11 2 1 1 5 1 - 4 8. 2019 18 8 - 10 7 1 6 - - - - 9. 2020 3 3 ------first quarter 10. Total 201 64 1 136 37 12 25 24 4 1 19

Insubordinations (mistreatment, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) out of which: 1. years total condemnation termination 2. 2013 39 6 33 3. 2014 48 13 35 4. 2015 32 6 26 5. 2016 18 4 14 6. 2017 28 5 23 7. 2018 22 9 13 8. 2019 25 3 22 9. 2020 first quarter 4 - 4 10. Total 216 46 170

The above data were collected by using the data provided by the Police units (recorded in the SDM) on the basis of statistical data of criminal and disciplinary proceedings, which were closed with full and final effect.

VI. Publication and dissemination

51. The judgments have been published on the website of the Government (see: http://igazsagugyiinformaciok.kormany.hu/az-emberi-jogok-europai-birosaganak-iteletei).

52. The Council of Europe and the Hungarian Government intends to organize jointly a round table in Budapest on professional policing. According to the suggestion of the Government the particular event could be organized during the period of the Hungarian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers (May 2021 – November 2021).

Conclusions of the respondent state

53. The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation found by the Court in this case and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Budapest, 3 July 2020

Zoltán Tallódi Agent for the Government of Hungary