A/HRC/44/42/Add.4 organisation regarding the conformity of Section 353/A of the Criminal Code with several dispositions of the Fundamental Law1: „[63] Section 353/A of the Criminal Code does not punish committing the offence negligently. The offence can only be committed intentionally. This is expressed in paragraph (1) by stating that the prohibited organising activity shall be carried out “in order to” make it possible to initiate asylum procedure for a person not entitled to asylum in Hungary; the organising activity shall be carried out “in order to” allow the person illegally entering to or illegally staying in Hungary to obtain residence title in Hungary. Paragraph (5) explicitly refers to the purpose when it provides support to interpret the term of organising activity: it shall be qualified as an organising activity when border monitoring is organised at the borderline of the external Schengen border or at the border sign, or information materials are prepared “with the purpose specified in Paragraph (1) [64] With regard to Section 353/A (1) a), it is irrelevant whether the person committing the criminal offence can foresee the result of the procedure of the authority. Several elements shall be examined in the asylum procedure on the basis of which a decision shall be made about granting the status or rejecting the application. These elements include whether the applicant is able to verify or at least substantiate persecution or the well-founded fear of it due to any of the so called five causes, the fact that his or her country of origin or country of habitual residence is unable or unwilling to provide protection to him or her; the authority shall examine the existence of the causes of inadmissibility (e.g. whether the applicant arrived from a safe country, where the applicant may provide evidence to the contrary), the causes of exclusion (e.g. terrorist act, Section 8 of AA), the entitlement to subsidiary protection is also assessed, just as the existence of non-refoulement etc. These questions should be assessed subject to a procedure of taking evidence. On the other hand, with regard to the purpose, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed when the perpetrator is conscious of – i.e. knows that – being engaged in the organising activity in the interest of a person who is not subject to persecution due to the so called five causes (e.g. the future applicant tells him or her that he/she is in fact not subject to persecution, but intends to settle down in the territory of Hungary or any other country of the European Union without the authorisation to do so), or whose fear of persecution is not well-founded. It is the duty of the investigating authorities to prove that the perpetrator was aware of the above. [65] With regard to Section 353/A (1) b) of the Criminal Code, on the basis of the statutory definition, the perpetrator shall be aware of the fact that the person, in the interest of whom he or she carries out organising activity in the interest of obtaining residence title had entered illegally into the territory of Hungary or is staying illegally in Hungary. The first part of Section 353/A (1) b) applies to the persons entering the country illegally that may include persons whose right to asylum is subsequently verified. However, the statutory definition covers engagement in the organising activity to be performed with straight intention, in the context of the prohibited purpose. Providing legal representation in itself does not mean an engagement in organising activity. [80] […]According to Article 28 of the Fundamental Law, in the course of the application of law, courts shall interpret the text of laws primarily in accordance with their purpose and with the Fundamental Law. In the interpretation of the Fundamental Law and of the laws one should assume that they serve a moral and economic purpose, which is in line with common sense and the public good. Threatening with punishment the altruistic organising activity aimed at the obligation of helping the vulnerable and the poor would be incompatible with the obligation laid down in the Fundamental Law on helping the vulnerable and the poor, with common sense and with the moral purpose complying with the public good. This is not referred to in the text of the statutory definition reviewed and neither may any court reach such conclusion based on a reasonable interpretation required by the Fundamental Law. 1 6 The full text of the decision is available in English here: http://public.mkab.hu/dev/dontesek.nsf/0/db659534a12560d4c12583300058b33d/$FILE/3_2019_EN _final.pdf.