A/HRC/44/42/Add.4 founded or not. Which is also reflected in the fact that 90% of the decisions were annulling the decision of the Alien Policing Directorate. In cases where an in merit decision was made at the Szeged Administrative and Labour Court the system for distance hearing was available all the time. Legislative measures – civil society organisations –points 56 and 67, point 6 Comments on point 56 of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants The crime “Facilitating and Supporting Illegal Immigration” was introduced in Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code on 1 July 2018 as the increasing migratory pressure, we have experienced in recent years, has led to the emergence of new forms of crime. One of the new forms of crime that became more and more common was the organisational activity aimed at exploiting the weaknesses of the European and Hungarian border protection and asylum systems, which, at the same time, promoted the abuse of the asylum procedure. The purpose of the new crime was to guarantee the right tools for fighting against persons who organise activities in order to help unauthorised persons to submit an application for asylum or to stay legally in Hungary. The first basic case of the criminal offence [section 353/A (1) a)] sanctions a person who acts as an organiser in order to enable a person to receive international protection, knowing that the person is not persecuted for any of the five reasons listed in Article XIV (4) of the Fundamental Law of Hungary or the fear of this person for such persecution is not justified (thereby circumventing the essence of right to asylum). The second basic case of the criminal offence [section 353/A (1) b)] prohibits any type of organising activity, which is aimed at assisting a person who has entered Hungary illegally or have been staying in Hungary illegally to get a residence permit. This provision aims to provide protection against abusive practices like entering into a marriage of convenience or giving a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity only for avoiding the expulsion of a person staying illegally in Hungary, or if expulsion has been ordered, only for legalising the stay within Hungary. Usually, organising activities lie behind such practices. Organising activities cannot be listed exhaustively; therefore, section 353/A (5) gives a quite abstract definition as to what behaviours should be considered typically as organising activities (e.g. organisation of border surveillance or dissemination of information materials). At the same time, however, it must be pointed out that such organising activity does not include legal advice and information, providing humanitarian assistance, or presenting the relevant legal regulation, thus, these actions are still allowed. The criminal offence furthermore can only be committed for a specific purpose and can, therefore, be punishable only if committed with direct intent (dolus directus). This means that the perpetrator should anticipate and desire the outcome of his activity. That is, the perpetrator must know at the time of the commission that he or she is engaged in an organising activity for a person who is not subjected to persecutions, or the fear of such direct persecution is unfounded. The perpetrator must also know that their action is capable of helping a person entering the country illegally or staying within the country illegally to obtain a residence permit. The perpetrator’s intent should specifically be aimed at this outcome. The investigating authority should prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether the perpetrator had such knowledge and intent or not. These aspects are reaffirmed in Decision 3/2019. (III.7) AB of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, which was based on a constitutional complaint submitted by a non-governmental 5