A/HRC/33/9 47. The delegation highlighted that access to public data was rarely rejected — only if there was a national security issue — otherwise data had to be provided. It stressed that, from the point of view of checks and balances concerning the independence of the judiciary and access to public data, Hungary was very transparent. 48. The delegation underscored that, in the context of migration, there was a joint responsibility of the international community, so a solution should be found where all the parties were partners. According to the Fundamental Law of Hungary, the right of asylum was provided to all asylum seekers. Hungary was the only country that registered over 200,000 people at its borders. The Hungarian public administration system was willing to handle those asylum applications. However, the majority of the asylum seekers had actually left the country shortly after applying for asylum. Hungary had not closed its borders per se, but, in order to protect the external borders of the Schengen area, it had established transit zones, within which asylum claimants could enter Hungary, provided their claim had been accepted. 49. The delegation reported that vulnerable groups had always been allowed entry. It pointed out that, in the transit zones, the Hungarian Red Cross and non-governmental organizations had been present, having received financial support from the Government to make sure that those refugees would be taken care of. In the transit zones, accommodation, medical care and catering had been provided. Hungary operated open reception centres. The delegation underscored that, for the implementation of asylum detention, there had been detention centres, not prisons, and that detention had only applied as a last resort (1.35 per cent of asylum seekers had actually been held in detention centres in 2015). The delegation mentioned there was room for improvement. It explained that old international legal frameworks had often been not easy to comply with; therefore, Hungary had been a very active party in various debates concerning the future legal framework and regulation on migrants. 50. Botswana noted measures to combat domestic violence and expressed concern about reports of continued discrimination of women belonging to national minorities. 51. Brazil was concerned with reports on denial of asylum applications after the adoption of a new law stipulating a list of safe countries. 52. Bulgaria appreciated the establishment of the office of the Ombudsman and the creation of an interministerial human rights working group. 53. Canada remained concerned at reports of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders. 54. Chad welcomed the adoption of a new Constitution and the establishment of a working group on human rights. 55. Chile appreciated the efforts made by Hungary in fighting discrimination against Roma and highlighted the National Strategy to promote gender equality. 56. China noted the measures taken by Hungary in protecting minorities and promoting social inclusion. 57. Colombia noted the measures adopted by Hungary to prevent and combat human trafficking and discrimination against women. 58. Croatia commended campaign for children, parents and teachers to promote responsible Internet use for children, aiming to tackle the protection of personal data and the prevention of cyberbullying. GE.16-11654 7