Amnesty International recently published an analysis of the Hungarian government’s proposal in relation to a ‘terror threat situation’, entitled “Hungary: Proposed“sixth amendment” to the Constitution would be a frontal attack on human rights”. The analysis is not only full of mistakes and miscomprehensions, but also derives from a fundamentally false hypothesis: a common and general characteristic of special legal orders is that, when they are in place, the exercise of fundamental rights may be suspended or restricted beyond a proportionate or necessary extent. In connection to this, it can be found among the rules of every special legal order that, in a given situation, an authorised person or body can form a decree, according to which they may suspend the application of certain laws, deviate from legal provisions or adopt other extraordinary measures. In fact, three out of the five special legal orders currently authorise the government to act immediately and without prior approval if the situation so requires: in a state of preventive defense, following its initiative; and in cases of unexpected attack and state of danger. Nonetheless, neither the previous nor the current government has abused it, despite the fact that, during previous floods and the Kolontár red sludge disaster, a state of danger was declared. In terms of guarantees, it needs to be stressed that – under subsequent parliamentary control – the general rule of special legal orders would also apply to a terror threat situation: that is that, the application of the Fundamental Law cannot be suspended, and the operation of the Constitutional Court cannot be restricted.
The full text can be read here: Amnesty International’s analysis is a complete mistake