Responses to Information Requests

Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa

In their March 2010 submission to the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), the Chance for Children Foundation (CFCF), a Hungarian organization founded in 2003 to combat discrimination against Roma and socially deprived children in public education, and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC), a non-profit organization that monitors the enforcement of human rights, state that

Hungary has one of the most advanced anti-discrimination laws and a system for minority protection in the Central and Eastern European region. A number of mechanisms have been developed to ensure that minority groups enjoy civil and political rights. However, the central government's general failure to maintain strong and effective control mechanisms over rights violations takes its toll on Hungary's largest minority, the Roma. (ERRC et al. 22 Mar. 2010, 3-4)

In addition, the three non-governmental organizations (NGOs) report that "law enforcement authorities ... systematically fail to provide effective protection to Roma" (ibid.).

Another group submission to the UN -- this one by, among others, the CFCF, ERRC, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and the Hungarian Association for Persons with Intellectual Disability -- says that

[a]ccording to NGOs, Roma victims face very often discriminatory treatment by the police: officers are reluctant to register their reports and especially the racial motivation of a crime reported. (CFCF et al. Nov. 2010, para. 4.7)

A September 2010 shadow report, prepared for the UN Human Rights Committee by the Legal Defence Bureau for National and Ethnic Minorities (NEKI), Minority Rights Group International (MRG) and the Serbian Institute of Budapest, also states that complaints submitted to NEKI "show that the Roma minority still experience[s] discrimination by the police during investigations and criminal proceedings" (NEKI et al. Sept. 2010, para. 3.7). According to the complaints

Roma victims often experience discriminatory treatment (lack of information and legal help, reluctance from the police etc.) by the police from the very first moment when they want to report a crime. This problem is the most tangible in hate crime investigations, where Roma are the victims of serious racially motivated crimes. (ibid., para. 3.8)

Human Rights First notes in its 2010 report on anti-Roma violence in Hungary that authorities such as the police showed efforts in bringing perpetrators of "high-profile" crimes to justice, especially crimes reported in the media (Oct. 2010, 6, 7). In one example, two policemen were held accountable for their "misconduct" in their initial response to the investigation of a hate-motivated double murder committed in 2009 (Human Rights First Oct. 2010, 6). However, the organization further indicates that the "authorities" have a "poor record" of justice when working on the "other serious cases of violence" that have been documented by human rights groups (ibid.). It points out that the police try to avoid pursuing a "bias motivation" in their investigations when the evidence suggests that it be considered (ibid., 7).

The CFCF et al. UN submission also notes that the police lack training on "international standards of investigating hate crimes," as well as a protocol for dealing with the investigation of hate crimes (Nov. 2010, para. 4.9). For more information on the training of the Hungarian police force, see Response to Information Request HUN103825 of 7 October 2011.

Submitting a complaint against a police officer

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities, also referred to as the Minorities Ombudsman, noted in correspondence with the Research Directorate that the Police Act of 1994 allows for a complaint against the "unlawful action" of a police officer to be submitted to the local captain of the police, with a higher ranking captain having the option to appeal the decision (Hungary 19 Sept. 2011). The resulting decision can be reviewed by the court (ibid.). In correspondence with the Research Directorate, the HHC similarly noted that the Police Act allows for any individual who has his or her "fundamental" rights violated by the police to "file a complaint with the police unit responsible" for the violation (15 Sept. 2011).

The HHC further informed the Research Directorate that

complaints shall be submitted within 30 days of the alleged violation by the concerned person or his/her representative. (Complaints may also be represented by human rights NGOs or foundations, minority self-governments or certain law professors.) The complaint is decided on in an administrative procedure by the head of the respective police unit within 30 days after receiving the complaint. (HHC 15 Sept. 2011)

The HHC noted that this "first instance decision" can be appealed "on any ground" to the "superior of the concerned police unit" (ibid.). The appeal must be filed

within 15 days after the delivery of the first instance decision, which shall forward the appeal and all the documents concerning the case to the superior unit within eight days after the appeal deadline, unless the unit which decided on the complaint withdraws the decision, refuses it without in-merit examination, or amends, corrects or supplements it in accordance with the appeal. If the appeal is forwarded to it, the superior body shall deliver a reasoned decision, affirming, modifying or annulling the first instance decision. (ibid.)

The subsequent "second instance decision may be challenged before the court by the complainant" (ibid.). However, the court "may not change the decision: it may only send the case back to the police and order a new procedure (however, the police are obliged to follow the guidelines set by the court in the new procedure)" (ibid.).

Independent Police Complaints Body

A Hungarian government report to the UN Human Rights Council states that the Independent Police Complaints Body, which is based in Budapest (Hungary 19 Sept. 2011), has been responsible for "performing civil control over Police activities" since 1 September 2007 (ibid. 16 Feb. 2011, para. 70). The Complaints Body is mainly involved in investigating "complaints received in connection with police actions and omissions" (ibid.). The HHC also noted that since 1 January 2008, the Complaints Body "investigates violations and omissions committed by the Police, provided that such violations and omissions substantively concern fundamental rights" (HHC 15 Sept. 2011). The Minorities Ombudsman specified that the Complaints Body receives complaints against the police for such things as discrimination and "racial brutality" (Hungary 19 Sept. 2011).

According to Hungary's UN submission, the Complaints Body is "independent" of the government to ensure that the rights of citizens are protected (ibid. 16 Feb. 2011, para. 70). The HHC also notes that the Complaints Body is "functionally external to the police authorities, and [that] its budget is included into the budget line of the Office of the Hungarian Parliament" (HHC 15 Sept. 2011). The five members of the Complaints Body are lawyers chosen by Parliament to serve a six-year term (Hungary 16 Feb. 2011, para. 70). According to the HHC, the members cannot be re-elected, and they must all be "lawyers with outstanding experience in the field of fundamental rights protection" (HHC 15 Sept. 2011).

The HHC stated that to file a complaint with the Complaints Body, it has to be

filed within eight days of the alleged violation by the concerned person, who may also be represented by human rights NGOs or foundations, minority self-governments or certain law professors. Anonymous complaints or complaints arriving from someone acting on behalf of the victim without a proper authorization are rejected automatically. (ibid.)

According to Hungary's report to the UN, the National Police Commissioner (also translated as the National Chief of Police and Chief Police Captain) is required to submit monthly reports to the Complaints Body about "complaints submitted to the Police" (Hungary 16 Feb. 2011, para. 70). If the Complaints Body finds that a citizen's "fundamental rights" have been seriously violated, it sends its decision to the Police Commissioner (ibid.; HHC 15 Sept. 2011), "who shall deliver a resolution within 30 days" (Hungary 16 Feb. 2011, para. 70). Although the Police Commissioner "delivers the decision on the individual complaint," he can only deviate from the Complaint Body's recommendation on "the basis of detailed argumentation" (HHC 15 Sept. 2011). The Police Commissioner's decision can be submitted to court for judicial review (ibid.; Hungary 16 Feb. 2011, para. 70; ibid. 19 Sept. 2011), as can decisions made by the Complaints Body (ibid.). The Minorities Ombudsman said that although the Police Commissioner can accept or refuse a decision from the Complaints Body, "[i]n practice," he "neglect[s]" 90 percent of the Complaints Body's decisions (ibid.).

If the Complaints Body determines either that there has been no violation of fundamental rights or that the violation was not "substantial," the complaint is forwarded to the police unit of the officer who committed the violation, unless the complainant does not allow it, in which case the case is "terminated" (HHC 15 Sept. 2011). If the complaint does not fall under the mandate of the Complaints Body, it is forwarded to the appropriate authority (ibid.). The Complaints Body will "[r]eject the complaint if the competent authority may not be established, or the complaint is filed after the deadline" (ibid.).

In a March 2011 ERRC report on anti-Roma violence in Hungary, which looked at 22 cases of violence against Roma, the organization noted that

[p]olice misconduct and procedural errors were documented during the investigation of one of the violent crimes against Roma, as raised by NGOs and later confirmed by the Independent Police Complaint [Body] and by the Head of Police. Misconduct by the National Security Service was also revealed. (ERRC Mar. 2011, 19)

The HHC indicates that in 2009 the Complaints Body issued 457 decisions on 737 complaints and that, of those 457 decisions, 59 were considered "severe" violations of fundamental rights and sent to the National Police Commissioner for adjudication (HHC 15 Sept. 2011). The Police Commissioner fully agreed with the Complaints Body in 11 of the 59 cases and partly agreed in 26 (ibid.). In 2010, the Complaints Body received 531 complaints and delivered 428 decisions, out of which 166 cases were considered "severe" violations of fundamental rights (ibid.). These cases were also sent to the Police Commissioner, who fully agreed with 14 of the Complaint Body's decisions and partly agreed with 4 others (ibid.).

Complaint mechanisms

The Minorities Ombudsman indicated that there is a general lack of information about appropriate forums through which victims of human rights violations can submit their complaints (Hungary 19 Sept. 2011). He further stated that the main mechanisms for submitting human rights violations are only located in Budapest (ibid.). For many settlements, the only available mechanism is something called a "minor-offence authority," which can be local municipal clerks, the police, or the tax office (ibid.). These authorities deal with minor "unlawful behaviour," such as the refusal to provide service or the delivery of poor service in retail outlets, and their decisions can be contested in court (ibid.).

In addition, the Minorities Ombudsman pointed out that the majority of the Roma live in poor towns and small villages in rural areas of Hungary, making it difficult for them to find legal aid, whether from legal experts or NGOs that are working in cities (ibid.). He noted that although the country has no specific complaints mechanisms for Roma whose human rights are violated, their anti-discrimination legal network was "integrated into the free legal aid system inside county/capital governmental administration offices in 2010" (ibid.).

Ombudsmen

The HHC notes that there are four ombudsmen in Hungary:

1. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil Rights, referred to as the General Ombudsman;
2. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities, referred to as the Minorities Ombudsman;
3. The Data Protection Ombudsmen, who protects personal data and ensures freedom of information; and
4. The Green Ombudsman, who is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations (HHC 15 Sept. 2011).

The ombudsmen are recommended by the President and elected by Parliament (ibid.). They can be re-elected once (ibid.).

The General Ombudsman is responsible for investigating cases concerning fundamental rights covered in the Hungarian constitution while the Minorities Ombudsman "has the same responsibilities in case of violations of the rights of national or ethnic minorities" (ibid.). The General Ombudsman receives complaints from those who perceive that a "public service provider" has "caused an irregularity," an omission that places the complainant's fundamental rights directly in danger (ibid.).

The public authorities under the jurisdiction of the General Ombudsman include public administrative bodies, the army, law enforcement organizations such as the police and fire fighters, investigative authorities, and local councils (ibid.). Neither Parliament, the President, the Constitutional Court, the State Audit Office, the courts, nor the Public Prosecutor's office, with the exception of its investigative unit, are under the General Ombudsman's jurisdiction (ibid.).

The HHC states that the Minorities Ombudsman is

authorized to act in all cases arising under the scope of the Minorities Act. This includes individual as well as collective minority rights (such as participation in education provided in the minority language, political and cultural equality, full participation in public life, maintaining contacts with the mother country, minority programs on the public service television, establishing and maintaining minority educational institutions) as well as the formation and operation of minority self-governments to promote minority rights. (ibid.)

According to the Minorities Ombudsman, both he and the General Ombudsman, accept complaints of "maladministration," which includes racist or discriminatory behaviour, by public administrators or service suppliers (Hungary 19 Sept. 2011). He maintains that this is the best way to make the discrimination public (ibid.). Although the decisions they make are not binding on public service providers or public authorities, their investigations "encourage consensus [or] mediation" and exert pressure for public policy changes (ibid.).

Submitting a complaint to the Ombudsmen

The HHC outlined the following complaint procedures, which apply to all ombudsmen:

The main form of action by the Ombudspersons is the investigation of individual complaints. Anybody may apply to the Ombudsman if in his/her view an authority, or a public service provider caused an irregularity in relation to the complainant’s fundamental rights in the course of its proceedings, provided that the petitioner exhausted the available administrative legal remedies – with the exception of judicial review – or none exist. Any complaint submitted to the Ombudsman shall be free of duty. The complainant is entitled to request the Ombudsman to do not reveal his/her identity. A complaint submitted to the Ombudsman shall not be detrimental to the complainant. If there is a final administrative decision in the case, the complaint may be submitted to the Ombudsman within one year after it was communicated to the complainant. The Ombudsman shall not proceed in cases in which a court procedure has been launched for the review of the administrative resolution, or a final court decision was delivered.

The Ombudsman is obliged to examine the complaint submitted to him, except if – in the opinion of the Ombudsman – the infringement submitted in the individual complaint is of small significance. Furthermore, evidently unfounded applications can be rejected, as well as applications submitted repeatedly and containing no new fact or data on the merits. The Ombudsman may also reject applications not submitted by the party entitled to do so, or anonymous complaints. The rejection shall be justified in all cases. If another authority is competent to proceed in the given case, the Ombudsman sends the application to it, and informs the complainant about the forwarding of the complaint. The ombudsman shall always inform the complainant about the results of the investigation conducted and the measures taken. ...

On discovering an infringement of constitutional rights, the Ombudsman proposes a resolution to the supervisory body of the entity which committed the violation. The supervisory body shall respond within 30 days, informing the Ombudsman about its standpoint concerning the proposal, or about the measures taken. Should the proposal be rejected, the Ombudsman decides within 15 days upon amending, upholding or repealing the proposal. If the violating entity may be able to terminate the infringement itself, the Ombudsman initiates the remedy of the violation with the head of the given authority. The concerned authority shall respond to such initiatives within 30 days. If the initiative is rejected, the authority shall inform its supervisory body, which must respond to the Ombudsman within 30 days. The Ombudsman may also initiate that the public prosecutor (the authority responsible for monitoring the lawful operation of state bodies) file a warning with the concerned authority. The Ombudsman may initiate disciplinary proceedings with the competent body where he/she deems it necessary; in the case of a perceived criminal offence however he/she is obliged to initiate criminal proceedings. (HHC 15 Sept. 2011)

Furthermore, an ombudsman cannot "impose sanctions if the authority fails to respond to or accept his/her recommendations;" however, if the offence is "particularly grave," or it "affect[s] a wider group of citizens, the ombudsman may request a parliamentary debate examination of the case" and then Parliament decides whether to add the issue to its agenda (ibid.).

Number of complaints submitted to ombudsmen

The Minorities Ombudsman indicated that the General Ombudsman received 8,051 complaints in 2010 and 6,764 in 2009 (Hungary 19 Sept. 2011). Information on the number of complaints that were based on race is unavailable (ibid.). The HHC also said that the General Ombudsman received 8,051 complaints in 2010, while noting that 332 concerned the police and 563 were related to the courts and penitentiaries (HHC 15 Sept. 2011).

The Minorities Ombudsman receives 800 to 1,000 complaints annually (Hungary 19 Sept. 2011). In 2010, 75 percent of those complaints were related to the Roma and included charges of racial discrimination and unequal treatment (ibid.). The HHC added that in 2009, out of 1,012 complaints, 69 complained about the police, 34 the penitentiaries, and 54 the courts; in 2010, out of 1,064 complaints, 73 were police-related, 34 penitentiary-related, and 45 court-related (HCC 15 Sept. 2011). According to the HHC, the annual report on the Minorities Ombudsman's activities indicates that in 2009, out of 1,012 complaints, 603 (61%) involved the Roma, and in 2010, 739 (70% ) of 1,064 complaints were Roma-related (ibid.).

The HHC also said that on 1 January 2012, the four ombudsmen will be replaced by one ombudsman, the Commissioner of Fundamental Rights, in accordance with Hungary's new constitution (ibid.). The new ombudsman and his deputies will be responsible to "defend the interests of future generations and the rights of nationalities living in Hungary" (ibid.).

Legal assistance

According to the Minorities Ombudsman, public prosecutors deal with complaints against the "unlawful actions of law enforcement" (Hungary 19 Sept. 2011). Depending on the results of their investigation, the prosecutor can commence disciplinary, penal, and ethical procedures against the "discriminator" (ibid.). However, notes the Ombudsman, the relationship between the police and the public prosecutors is "fraternal," which can hinder the impartiality of the investigation (ibid.).

In writing about the role of the courts, the Minorities Ombudsman indicated that

upon request, [the court] may review the final administrative decisions but without specific rules on human rights violations. If the court annuls the final decision the procedure shall be repeated in first instance in public administration. In certain issues the court is entitled to reform the final administrative decision exceptionally but not on the grounds of human rights violation. (ibid.)

The Minorities Ombudsman also noted that there is free legal aid available for poor and "segregated persons" if their income is below the minimal salary or pension level (Hungary 19 Sept. 2011). The attorneys responsible for providing legal aid are chosen and financed by a county's government administration office, including lawyers in Budapest (ibid.). According to the Ombudsman, NGOs and trade unions also provide free legal counsel but only in cities (ibid.).

Equal Treatment Authority

The Minorities Ombudsman indicated that the Equal Treatment Authority (ETA), operating under the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration, is located in Budapest (19 Sept. 2011). The ETA receives complaints of discrimination based on race, religion, nationality, and health conditions, and it has the authority to impose fines (Hungary 19 Sept. 2011). Similarly, the Hungarian government's report to the UN further details that the ETA was established in 2005 as an "independent administrative body" that "protect[s], enforce[s], and promote[s] equality and the right to equal treatment" (ibid. 16 Feb. 2011, para. 13). The ETA deals with "direct/indirect discrimination, segregation, harassment, [and] victimization" based on

gender; racial origin; colour; nationality; national or ethnic origin; mother tongue; disability; state of health; religious or ideological conviction; political or other opinion; family status; maternity or paternity; sexual orientation; sexual identity; age; social origin; financial status; part-time, temporary and other types of employment contract; the membership of an organization representing employees' interests and any other status, attribute or characteristic. (ibid., para. 14)

Although the ETA is directed by the Minister of Public Administration and Justice, the government cannot "instruct the Authority when it performs its duty under the Equal Treatment Act" (ibid., para. 13). According to the Hungary report to the UN, the ETA "can initiate proceedings upon individual complaints" (ibid., para. 14); that is, it conducts "independent investigations based on individual complaints" (HHC 15 Sept. 2011). Its authority "extends to all actions and omissions of all public actors and a limited circle of private persons (e.g., employers and persons offering goods and services to the public)" (ibid.). Thus, it can also initiate an "actio popularis submitted by NGOs and other stakeholders or ex officio" (Hungary 16 Feb. 2011, para. 14) with "a view to protecting the rights of persons and groups whose rights have been violated" (EU Nov. 2010, 86).

If the "right to equal treatment" is "violated" (Hungary 16 Feb. 2011, para. 14), the ETA can impose sanctions (EU Nov. 2010, 85; HHC 15 Sept. 2011). For example, it "may order the elimination of the situation concerned, prohibit further continuation of the conduct concerned; publish its decision or impose a fine" (Hungary 16 Feb. 2011, para. 14). The Hungarian government's UN report describes the ETA's decisions as "legally binding and enforceable," saying they "cannot be altered or set aside by the Government or public authorities" (ibid., para. 13). However, in a November 2010 report discussing anti-discrimination laws in the European Union, the European Commission notes that the ETA provides a "usually non-binding opinion" on complaints it receives from "victims of discrimination" (EU Nov. 2010, 85).

The ETA performs "most of its duties in co-operation with a six-member Advisory Committee, whose members have extensive experience in the protection of human rights and in enforcing the principle of equal treatment" (HHC 15 Sept. 2011). The ETA authority excludes Parliament, the President, the Constitutional Court, the State Audit Office, the ombudsmen, the courts, and public prosecutors (ibid.). According to the HHC, the ETA has to deliver a decision within 75 days of receiving a complaint unless the complaint concerns a minor or was submitted by an Ombudsman, in which case it has 45 days (ibid.).

The Minorities Ombudsman indicates that in 2010, the ETA received 1,300 complaints and started investigations into 377 of them (Hungary 19 Sept. 2011). Discrimination was determined to have taken place in 40 cases (ibid.). Most of the cases were complaints of employment-related discrimination, but there were also instances of racism in the public service (ibid.).

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim for refugee protection. Please find below the list of sources consulted in researching this Information Request.

References

Chance for Children Foundation (CFCF), European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), Foundation for the Women of Hungary, Hungarian Association for Persons with Intellectual Disability, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC), Legal Defence Bureau for National and Ethnic Minorities (NEKI), Minority Rights Group International (MRG), People Opposing Patriarchy, The City Is for All. November 2010. Hungary: Submission to the UN Universal Periodic ReviewHungary: Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review. <http://www.neki.hu/attachments/491_hungary-upr-08112010.pdf> [Accessed 24 Aug. 2011]

Council of Europe. 6 July 2011. Committee of Ministers. Resolution CM/ResCMN(2011)13 on the Implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by HungaryResolution CM/ResCMN(2011)13 on the Implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Hungary. <http://www.coe.int/t/dgh/monitoring/minorities/3_FCNMdocs/PDF_3rd_ CM_Res_Hungary_en.pdf> [Accessed 2 Sept. 2011]

European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC). March 2011. Imperfect Justice: Anti-Roma Violence and ImpunityImperfect Justice: Anti-Roma Violence and Impunity. <http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/file/czech-hungary-slovakia-imperfect-justice-06-march-2011.pdf> [Accessed 6 Sept. 2011]

European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), Chance for Children Foundation (CFCF), and Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC). 22 March 2010. Written Comments of the European Roma Rights Centre, Chance for Children Foundation and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee Concerning Hungary for Consideration by the United Nations Committee at Its 98th SessionWritten Comments of the European Roma Rights Centre, Chance for Children Foundation and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee Concerning Hungary for Consideration by the United Nations Committee at Its 98th Session. <http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/file/iccpr-2010-hungary.pdf> [Accessed 6 Sept. 2011]

European Union (EU). November 2010. European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice. Developing Anti-discrimination Law in Europe: The 27 EU Member States ComparedDeveloping Anti-discrimination Law in Europe: The 27 EU Member States Compared. <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/comparative_analysis2010_en.pdf> [Accessed 29 Aug. 2011]

Human Rights First. October 2010. Combating Violence Against Roma in HungaryCombating Violence Against Roma in Hungary. <http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/HungaryBlueprint.pdf> [Accessed 18 Aug. 2011]

Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC). 15 September 2011. Correspondence from a representative to the Research Directorate.

Hungary. 19 September 2011. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities. Correspondence with the Research Directorate.

_____. 16 February 2011. National Report Submitted in Accordance with Paragraph 15 (a) of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1National Report Submitted in Accordance with Paragraph 15 (a) of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1. Hungary. Hungary. (A/HRC/WG.6/11/HUN/1) <http://www.upr-info.org/IMG/pdf/a_hrc_wg.6_11_hun_1_e.pdf> [Accessed 1 Sept. 2011]

Legal Defence Bureau for National and Ethnic Minorities (NEKI), Minority Rights Group International (MRG), and Serbian Institute of Budapest. September 2010. Submission to the 100th Session of the Human Rights Committee: Shadow Report to Hungary's Fifth Periodic Report under the ICCPRSubmission to the 100th Session of the Human Rights Committee: Shadow Report to Hungary's Fifth Periodic Report under the ICCPR. <http://www2. ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/LDBNEM_Hungary100.pdf> [Accessed 24 Aug. 2011]

United Nations (UN). 16 November 2010. Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the CovenantConsideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant. (CCPR/C/HUN/CO/5) <http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/466/91/PDF/G1046691.pdf?OpenElement> [Accessed 6 Sept. 2011]

Additional Sources Consulted

Oral sources: The following organizations could not provide information for this Response: European Roma Rights Centre, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Foundation for the Women of Hungary, Hungarian Foundation for Self-Reliance, Phralipe Independent Roma Organization, and the Romedia Foundation. The following organizations did not reply within the time constraints of this Response: Central Office of Justice Victim Support Service, Equal Treatment Authority, European Roma Information Office, Fraternal Association of European Roma Law Enforcement Officers, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, International Police Association, Legal Defence Bureau for National and Ethnic Minorities, Ministry of the Interior, National Police Headquarters, National Roma Self-Government, Open Society Foundations, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Internet sites, including: Budapest Business Journal; Budapest Sun; Budapest Times EIN News; European Country of Origin Information Network; European Police College; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights; Factiva; Hungary – Equal Treatment Authority, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Justice; Legal Defence Bureau for National and Ethnic Minorities; Minority Rights Group International; United Nations – Integrated Regional Information Networks, Refworld.