Abstract: This article contributes to the debate about the impact of UN human rights review mechanisms on the ground, focusing on the issue of prosecution in hate crimes cases. National legislative or institutional changes presented as implementation measures do not necessarily reflect reforms in practice or genuine commitment of the government to comply with the recommendations of international human rights bodies. Rigorous follow-up of recommendations is missing from the UN review mechanisms—a gap which is frequently filled by domestic NGOs. The article focuses on the case of Hungary and those review mechanisms which are the most significant ones concerning hate crime-related advocacy, namely, the Universal Periodic Review and the state reporting system of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The impact assessment is based on a content analysis of recommendations and on semi-structured interviews with representatives of domestic NGOs advocating for more efficient prosecution of hate crimes. The author argues that more emphasis should be put on a thorough assessment of national reports and communications from the perspective of whether they reflect significant and long-term changes in practice. At the same time, state representatives involved in the Universal Periodic Review and expert members of UN treaty bodies should strive for a more detailed expression of recommended guidelines in order to adequately address the nuanced reality of human rights violations.