HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE SITUATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN HUNGARY

The Human Rights Committee today concluded the examination of the sixth periodic report of Hungary during which it reviewed efforts to implement the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Presenting the report, Péter Szijjártó, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary, stressed that the fundamental job of the Government was to secure the rights of its own citizens in the domains of security, work and family, and to a life free from fear of terrorism. Terrorist threats had increased in Europe over the past three years which was directly intertwined with illegal immigration. No illegal migrant would be admitted into the country and this issue must be tackled in a different way; help must be taken to where the trouble was, and every Hungarian person, irrespective of whether they lived, must be able to live in security and peace. Hungary would continue to make sure that it was the Hungarians those who determined who they wanted to live with in their country, and the sole source of that determination was the Government and not non-governmental organizations. Hungary guaranteed to its citizens the fundamental human right, which was the right to work, and unemployment currently stood at 3.8 per cent; since 2010, the wages had increased by 36 per cent and the minimum wage by 88 per cent. Hungary did not believe that increasing migrant population was the right response to combatting low birth rates; instead, it had put in place a family policy and was creating an enabling environment for Hungarians to have families and children. One million families took advantage of family benefits offered by the Government and 68,000 families had received Government funding for housing. Free meals were being provided to schoolchildren and free schoolbooks had been distributed to over one million children.

During the discussion, Committee Experts were very concerned that the systematic overruling of the Constitutional Court and the limitations in access to the Court and the implementation of its decisions diluted human rights protections in Hungary. The truncated legislative process which allowed bills proposed by Members of Parliament to quickly advance through legislature, lacked transparency and dialogue between the majority and minority in Parliament, and a proper public debate. Experts reminded that Hungary chose to be a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which reaffirmed the unalienable human rights and the protection from the tyranny of the majority. In that vein, the 2011 Rights of Nationalities Act appeared to be a step forward, but it was also very complex and unclear and imposed a regulatory burden that was too heavy on minority self-government structures. Despite positive legislative steps, Roma continued to experience discrimination across the board, and the segregation of Roma children in the education system was more widespread in recent years.

The rights of persons with disabilities, and their protection from discrimination, particularly for those with intellectual disabilities, had not yet been clearly established in the law. Hungary’s policy was anti-immigration, Experts said, noting with concern the mistreatment of asylum seekers, construction of barbed-wired fences and push backs at the border, and detention of migrants and asylum seekers including unaccompanied migrant children who were often detained together with adults. Other issues raised in the discussion included the excessive use of force by the police and ill-treatment by prison officers; lowering of the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years and excessive use of pre-trial detention for juveniles; holders of higher offices making derogatory and xenophobic statements; and the new law which defined a family solely with reference to marriage and the parent-child relationship.

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Szijjártó stressed that security, competitiveness, identity and family were the values of the utmost importance to Hungarians, and said that the fast-track actions it was taking were in the interests of no one else but the Hungarian people.

Margo Waterval, Committee Rapporteur, in her final remarks, thanked the delegation for the very frank and honest discussion and wished them a safe journey home.

The delegation of Hungary consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry for National Economy, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Human Capacities, Ministry of Justice, National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, and the Permanent Mission of Hungary to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will issue its concluding observations and recommendations on the report of Hungary towards the end of its session, which concludes on 6 April 2018. All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings is available at UN Web TV.


The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Thursday, 22 March to conclude the consideration of the third periodic report of Lebanon (CCPR/C/LBN/3) which started on 15 march 2018.


Report

The Committee had before it the sixth periodic report of Hungary (CCPR/C/HUN/6).

Presentation of Report

PÉTER SZIJJÁRTÓ, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary, remarked at the outset that this meeting was taking place at a critical time in Hungarian politics as the country was approaching its elections in 20 days. In its 1,100 years long history, Hungary had fought for its freedom against several takeovers, and had persisted, said the Minister, stressing that the fundamental job of the Government was to secure the rights of its own citizens in the domains of security, work and family. The citizens of Hungary had the right to security and to live without fear of terrorism. When 400,000 illegal immigrants had marched through Hungary, ignoring moral and behavioural standards and undermining international rules on immigration, the Government had said no to every international initiative that encouraged illegal immigration, including the quotas imposed by the European Union and the United Nations Global Compact on Migration. No illegal migrants would be admitted into the country; this was an issue that had to be tackled in a different way, continued the Minister. Help must be taken to where the trouble was; trouble should not be brought to where there was none. Terrorist threats had increased in Europe over the past three years, a fact that was directly intertwined with illegal immigration, said Mr. Szijjártó, emphasizing that every Hungarian person, irrespective of whether they lived must be able to live in security and peace.

The Hungarians had an opportunity to voice their opinion on the subject of migration in a National Consultative Process, and in the last one they had given a firm “no” to immigration. The Government would continue to make sure that in the future Hungarians determined who they wanted to live with in Hungary – the sole source of determining that should be the Government and not non-governmental organizations. The benefits of diverse populations were subject of many discussions in United Nations forums – in Hungary’s opinion homogeneous societies were not worse off than multicultural ones. That was a decision to be taken by the Hungarians themselves, said the Minister, noting that serious debates on this issue were taking place with non-governmental organizations, which exerted their voices in the international space; but their interests were international ones and they did not have Hungarian interests at heart. No one had elected non-governmental organizations to pursue any particular agenda, remarked Mr. Szijjártó, highlighting that Parliament and Congress, directly elected by the people, represented their will. The Hungarian people could donate one per cent of their taxes to non-governmental organizations if they so choose; there were 193 Hungarians who had contributed to those organizations. Pro-immigration non-governmental organizations could freely continue their efforts but that would not dissuade the Government to change its position.

The second fundamental human right was the right to work, a right provided to every Hungarian person. Unemployment in the State was currently at 3.8 per cent, achieved through the introduction of the lowest tax rate in Europe. Wages had increased by 36 per cent and the minimum wage was increased by 88 per cent as compared to 2010. The Government also had the obligation to create an environment for Hungarians to have families and children, and for Hungary, increasing a migrant population was not the right response to combatting low birth rates. Family policy, rather, was the correct solution to the problem. People with families enjoyed great tax benefits, particularly those with three or more children, who were not subject to personal income taxes. One million families took advantage of family benefits offered by the Government, and 68,000 families had received Government funding for housing. Free meals were being provided to schoolchildren and free schoolbooks had been distributed to over one million children. All those achievements notwithstanding, the primary need of Hungarians was security, insisted Mr. Szijjártó and reiterated the firm commitment of the Government to continue to promote the right of the Hungarian people to live a secure life.

Questions by Committee Experts

A Committee Expert commended the State party for their commitment to implementing their obligations under the Covenant and its Optional Protocol, and remarked that, while the 2011 law appeared to include important privacy protections, concerns remained about national-security related data collection. What changes had been introduced following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Szabo and Vissy v Hungary? Were the national security-related surveillance measures still exempt from prior judicial authorization?

The 2011 Rights of Nationalities Act appeared to be a step forward, however it was also very complex and unclear, and imposed a regulatory burden that was too heavy on minority self-government structures.

A concern was raised about sub-standard prison conditions and the payment of compensations to victims. What guarantee could Hungary offer that it followed the Committee’s views even in rare cases where the State was not fully convinced of the Committee’s position?

What were the significant developments in the legal and institutional framework to promote and protect human rights in Hungary, with particular regard to the Constitutional Court and cases in which national courts had referred to the provisions of the Covenant? There were concerns about a systematic overruling of the Constitutional Court, as the combined effect of limitation on the scope of constitutional review, access to the Court and implementation of decisions diluted human rights protections in Hungary.

An Expert echoed concerns raised by the civil society relating to the Act on the Protection of Families which defined a family solely with reference to marriage and the parent-child relationship; it also limited inheritance rights of non-married couples. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights claimed both provisions as discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Concerning domestic violence, an Expert asked for updated information for national strategy guidelines and whether the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) would be ratified and implemented in domestic investigations. There were estimates that 27.7 per cent of women had experienced sexual or physical violence beginning at age 15.

Another Expert, speaking about the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, noted that the institution was also responsible for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and raised concern about the budget for this function as well as availability of human resources to carry out the tasks.

The Criminal Code offered protection against incitement to violence and hatred, including hate speech, also on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Hate crime statistics however were not broken down by prohibited grounds, Experts remarked and asked the delegation to explain how the data on hate crimes were collected and reported on.

Reliable sources indicated that 45 per cent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons reported discrimination based on sexual orientation – what was being done to tackle this on-going discrimination?

Despite positive legislative steps, Roma continued to experience discrimination across the board, and the segregation of Roma children was more widespread in recent years. The discrimination had deepened with the concept of benevolent segregation, where Roma children were given time to “catch up” with their studies before entering mainstream Hungarian schools. There were alarming statistics that showed they rarely completed secondary education. What was being done to increase the inclusion of Roma children in education, and to ensure that they were not accidentally placed in “special” schools?

Article XV of the Fundamental Law protected individuals against disability-based discrimination, but there was little to no information concerning children with disabilities and how they were cared for. There was a concern whether persons with intellectual disabilities, or “limited mental ability”, and legally incapacitated persons were deprived from voting in elections, despite the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which guaranteed the right to vote to all persons regardless of their impairment. While the 1997 Healthcare Act provided protection from sterilization without the written consent, there were reports of forced sterilization of persons with disabilities especially women. It seemed that the legislation in fact enabled doctors to perform sterilization on wide grounds.

Another Expert said he was struck by the frankness of the introductory remarks and said he would speak with the same degree of honesty. A Government should absolutely provide security to its citizens, but Hungary’s policy was anti-immigration and drew on Christian values, which was an understanding of Christianity that was very different from that of the Expert, who then quoted a passage from Deuteronomy in the Bible.

Pertaining to sexist stereotypes and the problem of gender equality, a new strategy had been adopted, Experts noted and asked about specific measures to address negative stereotypes, which, since they were a cultural phenomenon could not be combatted other than through cultural action. It was very disappointing that stereotypes were encouraged by political leaders, one of whom who had stated that “it was better for women to stay at home.”

Measures taken by Hungary to combat trafficking in persons, such as the adoption of the law and a national strategy to prevent trafficking, seemed convincing; could the delegation provide specifics about the warning system in place to alert authorities to possible cases of trafficking and explain the system in place to support victims?

Could the delegation explain the decision to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years of age, when primary school wasn’t completed until age 14?

In terms of legal aid, it seemed that in half of the cases it was the police that chose defence counsels; usually the same lawyers were chose which made them financially dependent on those appointments by police. How could Hungary ensure that the appointment relationship between prosecutor and legal aid lawyer did not have negative repercussions for the legal representation of the arrested person?

A legislative packet entitled “Stop Soros”, directed at George Soros, founder of the Open Society Institute, seemed to stigmatise and punish organizations that defended the rights of migrants and human rights. The published propaganda appeared openly anti-Semitic, describing Mr. Soros as someone who sought to destroy the Hungarian identity, using his money and network. This was very disturbing and delegation was asked to clarify the matter. Also disturbing was that individuals holding high offices made derogatory statements such as “foreign migrants would force Hungarians to eat insects” and “Roma were animals living among Hungarian people”. Did Hungary realize that such xenophobia was a ground for genocide, and the persecution of millions of Jews during World War II?

Responses by the Delegation

PÉTER SZIJJÁRTÓ, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary, in his response, reiterated Hungary’s historical combat against dictatorships and rejected the comparison of the current Government to that of anything resembling a dictatorship. In 2010, Hungary had been on the edge of an economic cliff, and the people had voted for political action by a two-thirds majority. Elections had been free and fair and such a large majority allowed the Government to fast-track decisions and bring about quick legislation procedures which at the time had been a huge advantage.

Since then, Hungary had recovered and had even passed a new Constitution, the last of the former Communist bloc countries to do so. The previous Constitution dated back to 1949, recalled the Minister, and said that during the constitutional reform process, the citizens aged 16 and above had been asked whether they agreed or not with the reforms; hundreds of thousands had responded in writing thus providing a basis for the modification of legislative procedures. The Parliament had focused on the new Constitution for one whole month, and the whole process had been opened to the public and the institutions.

Public consultations had been held on the issue of migration in which two and a half out of eight million Hungarians had participated and provided their views on illegal migration.

Hungarian fought anti-Semitism more than any other European country, firmly said Mr. Szijjártó, and the evidence of this was criminalization of the Holocaust denial, while the Jewish community was alive and active in Budapest. As for discriminatory language against Mr. Soros, the Minister confirmed that indeed there was a disagreement, with Mr. Soros making it clear that the Government should be fired, but religion had not and would not enter into that conflict.

Since the new Government was in office, the number of Roma students in universities had doubled, an evidence of the increased openness of the entire educational system to Roma children. Programmes were in place to help Roma to send their children to school, and education from nursery to grade twelve was free.

With regards to their values as a Christian society, the Hungarian approach was to bring help where it was needed, particularly concerning areas where Christian communities were being eliminated, such as in the Middle East and in Africa. The solution to migration was to tackle the root causes, so food and clothing were sent to places where it was needed most to help Christians in need.

Men and women were completely equal in Hungary.

Another delegate said concerning Christian values, that Hungary was bound by the tenants of the Geneva Convention and the Bible, which together provided a framework guiding their work in that area.

Hungary was proud to have a flourishing and peaceful Jewish citizenry, and this was an important point to emphasize in the dialogue, said the delegate.

A human rights working group within the Ministry of Justice met twice a year, and it included wide participation by civil society organizations. Some organizations had left because of disagreements within the working group, but they were free to return and participate in the discussions.

A new law on privacy and data protection had been enacted in 2002, which considered recommendations received by the European Commission. There were approximately ten complaints a year concerning data protection.

Touching on domestic violence issues, a delegate said Hungary had signed the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) but had not yet ratified it. The outcome of the consultation on the ratification was very negative, according to the delegate. In recent years, Hungary had increased capacity of shelters for victims of domestic violence; five new crisis centres and eleven new halfway houses would be constructed in 2018 as well as six crisis ambulances and seven secret shelter houses to help victims of domestic abuse. This year, 236 new places would be provided in the shelters, so the strategies in place were working.

The age of criminal responsibility was lowered to 12 years of age only for heinous crimes such as assault and battery, homicide and terrorism. Data pointed to the fact that aggression spread faster among young children, however authorities had to examine the capacities of concerned children to esteem whether or not they could understand the consequences of their acts. Children aged 12 to 14 could only be subject to criminal measures and not punishment.

As for the legal counsel not doing their job well, this was a question handled by the bar and the quality of lawyers accepted to courts was also a matter for the bar. Neither the finances or quality of legal representation were of concern.

Addressing issues raised with regard to Hungary’s cardinal laws, a delegate responded that the institution of qualified majority was part of Hungary’s legal tradition and had a decisive role in the Government, which required a two-thirds majority to pass legislation. Expedited procedures in legislation such as these were inherent throughout European Parliaments and ensured quick due process in all cases, however it should be noted, the delegate said, that legislative procedure did not influence legal remedies against the norm.

The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights was ombudsman-like and provided public administration, bailiffs, public utility providers, etc. to the population, irrelative of human rights. The Equal Treatment Authority used administrative procedures and imposed legal fines. The Ombudsman, on the other hand, published reports on his inquiries and could turn to the Constitutional Courts to seek judicial remedies to rights violations.

Turning to Roma segregation, a delegate said that Parliament had amended the Act on Equal Treatment, which set out that religious education or ethnicity could not act as a segregation tool. Working groups on anti-segregation had been active in each educational district and were drafting up-to-date procedures to ensure that Roma children were not diagnosed as having disabilities. An anti-segregation round table had been developed and in operation since 2013; it was comprised of many different entities which aimed to identify measures to eliminate segregation in Hungary. There were 20 members of the round table and that included non-governmental organizations.

Speaking on disability, a delegate noted that children and people with psycho-social disabilities were receiving better and more attention, however the number of children with disabilities, placed in the care of foster parents continued to grow. The delegate rejected claims that Hungary was participating in forced sterilization of people with disabilities, and explained that healthcare was strictly monitored and sterilization operations were only carried out with the full consent of the patient. If those rules were not followed, then sanctions were imposed. In the last five years there had been no reported cases of forced sterilization.

Regarding hate crimes, the delegation said that the police had received a handbook on hate crime identification in 2016, and there was also an established network of experts whose goal it was to identify the hate motivations of crimes as well as monitor the investigative processes. This network of experts cooperated with non-governmental organizations and they had drawn up a list of indicators to identify hate crimes. They were also working on a protocol to support the efficacy of police investigations in this regard.

Police investigations concerning hate crimes were not allowed to enter data concerning the ethnic, religious or gender orientation because the collection of data concerning protected people or people with protected characteristics did not occur in Hungary.

Questions by Committee Experts

The delegation was asked to explain what it meant that the “initial reactions to ratifying the Istanbul Convention were negative” – what could be negative about this seemingly innocuous way to protect women from domestic violence?

Hungary insisted on an autonomous Government able to govern the country free from non-governmental organizations and other international oversight, Experts noted and remarked that Hungary had agreed to the Covenant, which reaffirmed the unalienable right to dignity and human rights and the protection from the tyranny of the majority.

Measures taken to address homelessness suggested the criminalization of poverty and the State had the fourth amendment that enabled Parliament or local government to criminalize homelessness. Individuals who were sanctioned could not afford to pay fines and risked confinement, while some 30,000 homeless people had been evicted from the centre of Budapest, classified as a World Heritage site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, without shelters being provided to house them.

The Committee was concerned about travel restrictions imposed on non-residents attempting to cross Hungary by train en route to other countries including the denial of travel in some cases, mistreatment of asylum seekers, and even the use of tear gas on protesting asylum seekers in Roszke. Further, there was the eight-kilometre zone at the border where the police pushed third country nationals back to the external side of a barbed-wire barrier. The delegation was whether foreigners so pushed back had no right to submit asylum request, and was also asked to inform on the use of force to prevent movements of migrants.

Another Expert asked the delegation to respond to allegations of excessive use of force by the police and cases of ill-treatment committed by prison officers. Were measures in place to prevent this? A past Committee recommendation had suggested requiring video recordings of all interrogations to force responsibility on possible perpetrators – had this been implemented?

According to data from the Chief Prosecutor’s Office for the 2007-2017 period, complaints of ill-treatment or forced interrogation by law enforcement officials had resulted in an annual indictment rate not higher than six per cent. Experts asked how detainees were informed about procedures to file a formal complaint against law enforcement for ill treatment; how the investigations into those complaints were conducted; and the system in place to protect detainees who complained from retaliation.

Of particular concern was the situation of juveniles in detention; it was reported that in one juvenile prison, 20 per cent of detainees were in pre-trial detention and nearly half had been held for over six months. Another report found that the pre-trial detention of juveniles took place, in some cases, in a penitentiary institution rather than in juvenile places of detention. Those were contrary to the Covenant, Experts remarked. They asked whether asylum seekers were automatically detained even if they were under 14 years of age, and raised concern about the lack of a comprehensive age assessment of unaccompanied migrant children and also the lack of information as to whether they were placed in detention with adults.

What measures were in place to improve conditions of detention centres for asylum seekers, in particular, concerning conditions for children? In view of reports of lack of services in transit zones, the Committee Expert asked what measures had been taken to ensure persons in those zones were protected from inhuman and degrading treatment.

Could the delegation comment on reports of solitary confinement of up to 30 days for adults and up to ten days for juveniles? What system of redress was in place for disciplinary measures imposed on inmates?

Hungary had amended the legislation to introduce a presidential pardon to those serving life sentence. The European Court of Human Rights handed down a ruling recently which found that the new pardon procedure still ran counter to Article 3 on the European Convention on Human Rights because the convicted person could only request pardon after a lengthy 40 years, while the power entrusted to the President to grant that pardon was too broad. How would this ruling be taken into consideration in the review of the pardon procedure?

The 2015 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, Varga and others v. Hungary, had concluded that the detention conditions of the applicants amounted to the violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. Overcrowding of places of detention was very high, reaching 200 per cent in some institutions. What was being done to address this problem and improve the poor hygiene and sanitation conditions?

Experts continued to be concerned about the treatment of unaccompanied migrant children who, pending the result of their age determination procedures, were often detained with adults. It was also of concern that, when identification documents were not available, medical procedures were being used to determine the age. What was Hungary doing to adequately protect and care for such children, including by providing judicial reviews of the age assessment procedures?

With regards to freedom of expression and association, and the right to participate in public life, Experts asked about the mass media act and the press freedom act and how those were compatible with Hungary’s obligations under the Covenant. In this context, they raised concern about non-governmental organizations with foreign funding being audited by the authorities for allegedly supporting the opposing political party.

The set of bills on the protection of Hungary’s borders represented as an infringement on human rights, as it required organizations which received foreign funding to register with authorities under the Criminal Law. If adopted, those laws would label civil society organizations and hamper critical thinking and solutions to issues like migration, they said and also urged Hungary to consider the repeal of the 2017 law.

Changes to the higher education law had been fast-tracked in 2017 to impose stringent new requirements on certain universities, and also imposed restrictions on universities with overseas campuses. Would Hungary close down the Central European University?

Another Expert expressed concerns that under the legislative process, bills proposed by members were advanced through the legislature through a truncated process that did not require debate by the Parliament and general public. Such a process didn’t seem fully legitimate, it lacked transparency and dialogue between the majority and minority in Parliament, and a proper public debate. Furthermore, some civil society organizations were excluded from the consultation on draft bills.

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said that 64 non-governmental organizations had replied to the social initiative concerning the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention): 75 per cent had a negative view of the Convention, said a delegate.

Special shelters had been created for the homeless and there was no fine imposed on those in in public spaces. Every person could decide for themselves whether to move into the shelter, and a number of homeless decided not to do so. The police had an obligation to alert social services and health care professionals if they came across a homeless person or those whose life and health was in danger, and would escort them to hospitals to ensure their proper care.

Speaking on the transit zone and the detention for asylum seekers in those zones, the delegation noted a basic misunderstanding of the notion of detention, and said that the people were not detained as they were free to leave the transit zone and return to Serbia at any time.

Principles laid down in the Convention were taken very seriously and they constituted part of the Hungarian legal system, said a delegate. Domestic violence, criminal code and criminal procedure code had thoroughly regulated victim protection. The ongoing consultations indicated that many partners did not want the ratification of the Istanbul Convention and felt it needed further consideration by the wider public.

With regards to pre-trial detention, Article 9 of the Covenant did not set a specific timeline regarding detention, said a delegate adding that it was possible to prolong detention for more than four years. Hungary was not the only European Union Member State that did not set a maximum timeline for pre-trial detention. Juveniles were only held in pre-trial detention of if their offence was severe, and also considered were their age, criminal record and personal circumstances.

Regarding overcrowding of prisons, complaints could be filed with the commander of the prison who would take measures to ameliorate the prisoner’s current living conditions, including through moving the prisoner to a larger cell or another prison, or by granting more time outside. The Government complied with international regulations in this regard so beds were added in prison institutions and a resolution had been adopted to expand the capacity of prisons and reduce overcrowding. Those detainees who demonstrated good and cooperative behaviour could carry out the final stages of their detention in their homes with an electronic monitoring bracelet; this measure also helped with their reintegration. Other measures to reduce overcrowding included a balancing program between prisons under which detainees were transported and moved between prisons to reduce overcrowding. Detainees were also located in institutions closest to their place of residence. There was a constant decrease of people in detention.

There were 240 juveniles in detention, a significant reduction from previous years.

A delegate admitted that deficiencies had been exposed in the course of the audit of a children’s home in terms of professional expertise of the staff and specialized care for autistic children. Immediate measures had been taken and an action plan containing 30 measures had been put in place. More staff would be hired and internal redesign and refurbishment would be initiated with regard to living space. Better services would also be provided for people with serious mental disability.

Concerning media freedoms, the legislation was in line with international requirements, and fines were only brought on by hate speech.

Closing Remarks

PÉTER SZIJJÁRTÓ, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary, in his concluding remarks, stressed that security, competitiveness, identity and family were the values of the utmost importance to Hungarians. Noting the many questions in the dialogue concerning the legislation particularly in relation to migrants, he reiterated the Government was acting on the basis of the mandate it had received by the Hungarian people in the course of democratic elections. The fast-track actions it was taking were in the interests of no one other than the people. Mr. Szijjártó urged the Committee, in their assessment of the situation concerning migration, to first consider the threat, noting that Hungary viewed migration as a bad and dangerous process. Migration must be stopped, it must be halted, and there would be no agreement on that subject. It was regrettable that there were those who were more concerned about the well-being of the migrants and their security, he said, reaffirming that the security of the Hungarian people was primordial. Hungary refuted the notion that migration was a human right; nobody had the right to wake up one morning and point to a country on the map of the world and choose a place to settle, travelling through continents to get to that place. Everyone must remain in their own countries and migration should not be inspired.

The protection of the national borders was the most important component of the nation’s sovereignty, stressed the Minister. As a member of the Schengen Zone, Hungary had obligations to ensure that the Zone’s external border could only be crossed at the border crossing places during opening hours and at appropriate crossing zones. Hungary viewed the march of 400,000 illegal migrants had marched through the country and the violation of its borders as a serious issue. Hungary had addressed the illegal crossing of its border, built the fence to guarantee security of the Hungarian people, and would stop anyone who tried to enter Hungary with violence and through force.

Over 61,000 non-governmental organizations were registered in Hungary and it was legitimate that Hungary expected those organizations, which influenced public opinion, to be transparent about their funding sources and the interests they represented. The Hungarian Act on Higher of Education had been amended to ensure equality and non-discrimination for all institutions of higher learning, including for the Central European University. The Act prohibited the issue of a degree of a country if the teaching did not take place there; therefore, a United States degree could no longer be issued if all the teaching took place in Hungary. Finally, Mr. Szijjártó reiterated that the Government of Hungary would continue to guarantee security – legal and physical – for its citizens and for all those who studied and did business in Hungary.

MARGO WATERVAL, Committee Rapporteur, in her final remarks, thanked the delegation for the very frank and honest discussion and wished them a safe journey home.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CCPR/18/05E