A/HRC/44/42/Add.4 [81] […] Therefore, based on the review of Section 353/A (1) of the Criminal Code, the Constitutional Court established that the concern raised by the petitioner is completely unfounded, as it is evident that the new statutory definition included in the Criminal Code only orders to punish the intentional conducts contained therein and it does not order to punish any other conduct, i.e. the new statutory definition shall not be applicable to any conduct not related to the purpose prohibited in the statutory definition and carrying out the altruistic obligation of helping the vulnerable and the poor. Regarding the new regulation, it shall be up to the judicial practice to specify the conditions under which an organising activity should be considered as humanitarian assistance, to state which forms of assistance are not punishable and when these limits are deemed to be crossed. [82] Considering the above, the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaint.” Based on the above, it is also clear that the wording does not create ‘chilling effect’. The concern that it can be subject to biased interpretation or application, is unsubstantiated. The wording also does not violate the requirement of transparency and legal certainty, thus is not aimed at deterring civil society organisations and their advisors working in the transit zones, nor should it have such an effect. Other criminal offences of the Criminal Code has already included definitions of organisational activities, which was also highlighted by the Constitutional Court, and the legal practice related to these can provide points for interpretation as to what should be considered as organising activity. The Hungarian Government further adds that, to its knowledge, no proceedings (even unfounded) have been initiated on the basis of Section 353/A so far, so the assumption that it is aimed at the pursuance of the activities of legal aid providers and advisers is also incorrect on the basis of practice. Since the entry into force of Section 353/A of the Criminal Code (on 1 July 2018) it has not been observed that the pursuit of the activities of legal advice and legal assistance in this field has decreased. Likewise, it is also unfounded by the evidence available, that there have been unjustified proceedings, abuses by the authorities or over-execution based on the new statutory definition. Given that the courts are bound by the decisions of the Constitutional Court, it is clear that there will be no change in the jurisdiction, either now or in the future, extending the criminal liability under Section 353/A to activities such as bona fide support of migrants or humanitarian aid. The Hungarian Government notes that similar line of argument is set out in Case C-821/19 Commission versus Hungary. Consultations between the Government and Civil Society Organisations In point 6 of the draft report the Special Rapporteur states that the Government adopted restrictive measures against the operation of civil society and restricting them to express their views. In this context, activities of the Human Rights Working Group and its Thematic Working Group Responsible for Refugees and Migration should be underlined. The Working Group and the Thematic Working Group aim to conduct consultations with civil society on a regular basis. The Government established the Human Rights Working Group in its decision adopted in February 2012 (Government Resolution 1039/2012 (II.22).) with the main purpose of monitoring the implementation of human rights in Hungary, conducting consultations with civil society organisations, representative associations and other professional and constitutional bodies as well as of promoting professional communication on the implementation of human rights in Hungary. The Working Group monitors the implementation of the fully or partially accepted recommendations in relation to Hungary of the United Nations, Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group. Due to the modification of the Government Resolution, the Working Group also reviews and monitors the enforcement of human rights conventions and agreements – of which Hungary 7