A/HRC/44/42/Add.1 application for international protection, disapplying as necessary the national law that would prohibit it from proceeding in that way”. The Special Rapporteur was informed that after the delivery of the judgment of the European Court of Justice, the national court in Hungary that had requested the preliminary ruling, had granted the applicant international protection. 45. According to section 80 K (5) of the Asylum Act, during a crisis caused by mass immigration, the court will conduct personal interviews in the transit zone or through a telecommunications network. Based on the information gathered during the visit, the Special Rapporteur noted that asylum seekers in the transit zones did not seem to have a chance to actually appear before a judge, either physically or on a video link. Although there is a container designated as a temporary courtroom at each transit zone, none of the asylum seekers to whom the Special Rapporteur spoke had been to the container or seen a judge, including those who had been there for over a year. 46. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that personal interviews carried out by the courts form an important part of the procedure whereby asylum seekers are given the opportunity to present their claims before a judge in person. He brought this observation to the attention of the relevant authorities and learned that applicants or their legal representatives could actually request a hearing. Judges could also decide, at their own initiative, to hold a hearing. However, on the one hand, judges are not obliged to conduct a hearing, especially since the majority of asylum claims are assessed and reviewed on the ground of inadmissibility, which is considered a matter of law, independent of any presentation by the applicants. On the other hand, judges at the competent court in Budapest seem to be reluctant to hold hearings on inadmissibility cases, either physically or through a video link, as they have a very heavy workload with short deadlines. E. Risk of refoulement and non-provision of food by law 47. The Special Rapporteur also paid a visit to individuals under the alien policing procedure, most of whom are pending removal from Hungary. In the transit zones, individuals under the alien policing procedure are held in a separate sector. It was brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur that many of these “rejected” asylum seekers were threatened with deportation to their countries of origin, where they might face persecution, without having the merits of their asylum claims examined on an individual basis. In view of the relevant legislative framework and its practical operation, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that there is a lack of procedural safeguards to protect asylum seekers against refoulement. The asylum procedure at the transit zones did not seem to be accompanied by appropriate safeguards, nor did it provide a real opportunity for asylum seekers to present the merits of their cases. Individual assessment of the risk of ill-treatment in case of removal was also lacking. Earlier in 2019, three families from Afghanistan were nearly put on a flight provided by the European Border and Coastguard Agency to be deported to Afghanistan. Although the flight was cancelled in the end, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that the relevant authorities did not conduct an individual assessment on the risk of refoulement before implementing the removal procedure to send those individuals back to their country of origin.17 48. Another issue of concern in connection with the alien policing procedure is that adult men held under this procedure are sometimes denied food as a result of an existing gap in the domestic legislation.18 Based on the information received, the Special Rapporteur learned that asylum seekers whose claims had been rejected and those considered as “repeat” or “subsequent” applicants were provided only with accommodation in the transit zone without access to other material provisions, such as food. The provision of material, including food, is not guaranteed in the relevant domestic legislation, although food is provided to women and children. Within families, as a practical solution, children and women shared their food with the male members of the family, although it was not necessarily sufficient. Male adults who had not travelled with family were on several occasions not provided with food by the authorities. Following requests by the attorneys of 17 18 See also UNHCR, “Hungary’s coerced removal of Afghan families deeply shocking”, 8 May 2019. Act II of 2007 on the Admission and Right of Residence of Third-Country Nationals. 11