A/HRC/42/39 45. In a letter dated 30 April 2018, the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom stated that the Government would be pleased for the Working Group to visit. Due to previous requests for visits by other special procedure mandate holders, the United Kingdom would welcome a visit as from the latter part of 2019. 46. In a note verbale dated 21 May 2018, the Permanent Mission of Colombia thanked the Working Group for its interest in conducting a visit and noted that, given the electoral period, the authorities would need to identify a more convenient time. 47. In a note verbale dated 7 June 2018, the Permanent Mission of Guatemala stated that the Government had other commitments in the area of human rights in 2018 and proposed that the Working Group visit at the end of 2019. 48. In a note verbale dated 30 July 2018, the Permanent Mission of Hungary informed that the Government is ready to organize the visit between 12 and 16 November 2018. 49. In a note verbale dated 6 July 2018, the Permanent Mission of Singapore stated that the Government did not currently plan to invite the Working Group and would approach it if the situation should change. 50. In a note verbale dated 22 October 2018, the Permanent Mission of Qatar approved the suggested dates of 3 to 14 November 2019 for the visit. 51. On 22 October 2018, the Permanent Mission of Canada stated that the Government is unable to accommodate a visit within the requested time frame, and indicated that it would propose different dates. 52. In a letter dated 4 December 2018, the Permanent Mission of Greece expressed the Government’s agreement to the visit taking place from 2 to 13 December 2019. 3. Follow-up visit to Hungary 53. At the invitation of the Government, the Working Group undertook a follow-up visit to Hungary, which was scheduled to take place from 12 to 16 November 2018. On 14 November, the Working Group decided to suspend its visit following the denial of access by the authorities to two “transit zones” at Röszke and Tompa, on the border of Hungary with Serbia, which house asylum seekers. The authorities explained that the individuals in those facilities are free to leave for Serbia and are therefore not considered to be deprived of their liberty. Subsequently, the Hungarian authorities also noted that since the visit was a follow-up one and the two facilities did not exist at the time of the Working Group’s previous visit in 2013, they should not have formed part of the visit. 54. The Working Group pursued its dialogue with the Government of Hungary following its visit to the country. It noted that in accordance with the terms of reference for visits by independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council, Governments are required to guarantee freedom of inquiry, particularly with regard to “confidential and unsupervised contacts with … persons deprived of their liberty”.4 This includes the right to freely choose which facilities to visit and whether to announce such visits in advance. Without such unimpeded access, the Working Group is unable to ascertain the applicable regime and its implementation on the ground, which in turn prevents it from making a decision as to whether de facto detention is taking place. The Working Group wishes to recall that whether a particular place is a place of deprivation of liberty is to be determined on the basis of examination of the applicable laws and regulations, the regime as implemented on the ground, as well as international human rights norms and standards related to deprivation of liberty. Such an assessment cannot rest solely upon the assessment of the local authorities as to whether the place is one of deprivation of liberty. During its visits to other countries the Working Group has visited facilities and concluded that they did not constitute places of detention. 5 4 5 See www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/ToRs2016.pdf. See A/HRC/42/39/Add.1. 25