GE.1 3-10232
Human Rights Council
Twenty -second session
Agenda items 2 and 3
Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights and reports of the Of fice of the
High Commissioner and the Secretary -General
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development
Effective measures and best practices to ensure the
promotio n and protection of human rights in the context of
peaceful protest s
Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights *
Summary
The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 19/3 5
requesting the High Commiss ioner for Human Rights to prepare and submit a thematic
report on effective measures and best practices to ensure the promotion and protection of
human rights in the context of peaceful protest s.
Member States , regional organizations, national human righ ts institutions and civil
society organizations provided input for this report. In accordance with resolution 19/35,
this report also includes information drawn from treaty bodies and relevant thematic special
procedure mandate holders.

* Late submission.
United Nations A /HRC/22/28

General Assembly Distr.: General
21 January 201 3

Original: English

A/HRC/22/28
2
Based on the inpu t provided, t he report outlines examples of effective measures and
best practices to promote and support the promotion and protection of human rights in the
context of peaceful protest s. It concludes that peaceful protest s are a fundamental aspect of
a vib rant democracy . The promotion and protection of peaceful protests require not only an
adequate legal framework but also continuous efforts for their effective implementation .
Dialogue between protest organizers, administrative authorities and the police , as well as
human rights training programmes for police forces, including on the use of force during
protests, can contribute to the promotion and protection of the human right s linked to
peaceful protest s.

A/HRC/22/28
3
Contents
Paragraphs Page
I. Introduc tion ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 1–2 4
II. Treaty bodies ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 3–7 4
III. Special procedure s ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 8–24 5
IV. National legislation, e ffect ive measures and best practices ………………………….. ….. 25 –76 8
A. Relevant national legislation ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 25 –33 8
B. Measures and best practices ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 34–76 9
V. Conclusions ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 77–78 17

A/HRC/22/28
4
I. Introduction
1. In its resolution 19/35, the Human Rights Council requested the High Commissioner
for Human Rights to prepare and submit a thematic report to the Council, prior to its
twenty -second session, on effective measures and best practices to en sure the promotion
and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests.
2. The Council encouraged relevant thematic special procedures mandate holders,
including the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the
Special Rapporteur on the right s to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, to contribut e to this report . It further
requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights , to draw on the experience of treaty
bodies and to seek the views of States and relevant partners, such as United Nations
agencies, regional organizations, national human rights institutions and civil society
organizations when preparing the report .1
II. Treaty bodies
3. Participation in peaceful protest s can be an important form of exerc ise of the rights
to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression established in articles 21 and
19 respectively of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 2 According to
general comment No. 34 (2011) of the Human Rights Committee, freedom of opinion and
freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of th e person;
such freedoms are essential for any society and constitute the foundation stone for every
free and democratic society (para. 2) .
4. Recent jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee noted the intimate connection
between the acts protected by ar ticles 19 and 21 of the Covenant .3 Other rights that may be
applicable in case of peaceful protests include, for instance, the right to freedom of
association (art . 22) and to take part in the conduct of public affairs (art . 25). The Human
Rights Committee , in its general comment No. 25 (1996) , confirm s that enjoyment of the

1 The following States submitted information: Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrai n, Costa Rica,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Guatemala, Madagascar, Moldova, Mongolia,
Montenegro, Morocco, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovenia,
Spain and Switzerland.
Regional organizations and national hum an rights institutions that submitted information were the
Commonwealth Secretariat ; Organization for Security and Co -operation in Europe; Ombudsman of
Bulgaria, Malawi Human Rights Commission, National Human Rights Commission of India, Human
Rights Commis sion of New Zealand, Ombudsman of Panama, Office of the Human Rights Defender
of Poland, National Human Rights Commission of Qatar, South African Human Rights Commission,
Ombudsman of Venezuela (Bolivar Republic of).
A number of non -governmental organiz ations submitted information . To the extent that it relate s to
effective measures and best practices, such information has been included in the report. However,
some submissions contained allegations of violations by States of human rights in the context o f
peaceful protests, such as disproportionate use of force or harassment of protestors. Such information
has been transmitted to the Special Rapporteur on the right s to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association for further action, but has not been included in this report.
2 Human Rights Council resolution 19/35 of 23 March 2012.
3 See for example, communication No. 1316/2004, Mecheslav Gryb v. Belarus , Views adopted on 26
October 2011, para. 9.5.

A/HRC/22/28
5
right to participat e in the conduct of public affairs requires the full enjoyment and respect
for the rights guaranteed in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant , including , inter alia,
freedom to hold peaceful demonstrations and meetings (para. 25) .
5. The rights and freedoms provided for under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant ,
however, are not absolute and may be subject to restric tions. 4 Article 21 states that no
restrictions may be placed on the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly other than those
imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protect ion of
public health or morals or the protection of rights and freedoms of others. For instance, t he
Human Rights Committee has found that a requirement to notify the police of an intended
demonstration in a public place six hours before its commencement m ay be compatible
with the permitted limitations laid down in article 21 .5
6. Similarly, under article 19 , paragraph 3, the right to freedom of expression may be
subject to restrictions only as provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or
repu tations of others, or the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public)
or of public health or morals. In its general comment No. 34 (2011) , the Human Rights
Committee further explain s that any restrictions on the exercise of such freed oms “must
conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality ” and “be applied only for those
purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related to the specific need on
which they are predicated” (para. 22). In the context of an individual communication, the
Committee pointed out that although general comment No. 34 refer s to article 19, it also
provides guidance with regard to elements of article 21. 6
7. According to the Committee `s jurisprudence , it is up to the State party to s how that
restrictions on an author’s right under article 19 , paragraph 3, of the Covenant are necessary
and that even if a State party introduces a system aiming to strike a balance between an
individual’s freedom to impart information and the general int erest in maintaining public
order in a certain area, such a system must not operate in a way that is incompatible with
article 19 of the Covenant .7
III. Special procedures
8. In his initial report to the Human Rights Council, t he Special Rapporteur on the
rights to freedom of assembly and of association defined the term “assembly” as including
demonstrations, strikes, proce ssions, rallies or even sit -ins. He elaborate d on the
international legal framework applicable to the right to peaceful assembly, inclu ding
restrictions on this right and the relationship between article 21 and other rights set out in
the Covenant. The Special Rapporteur also stressed the obligation of Member States to both
facilitate and protect peaceful assemblies, including through neg otiation and mediation. 8 He
further noted that the right to freedom of assembly is also reflected in article 8 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in other international
and regional instruments (para. 14) .

4 See communication No. 1866/2009, Chebotareva v. Russian Federation , Views adopted on 26 March
2012, para. 9.2.
5 Communication No. 412/1990, Kivenmaa v. Finland , Views adopted on 31 March 1994, para. 9.2.
6 Communication No. 1790/2008, Govsha, Syritsa and Mezyak v. Belarus , Views adopted on 27 July
2012), para. 9.4.
7 Communication No. 1157/2003, Coleman v. Australia , Views adopted on 17 July 2006, para. 7.3.
8 A/HRC/20/27, paras. 24 and 89.

A/HRC/22/28
6
9. In thei r joint contribution to this report, t he Special Rapporteurs on the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, on the right to freedom of opinion and
expression, and on the situation of human rights defenders pointed out that States should
recognize the positive role of peaceful protests as a means of strengthen ing human rights
and democracy. They should guarantee the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom
of association, and freedom of opinion and expression, which are essential co mponents of
democracy and indispensable to the full enjoyment of all human rights. In far too many
instances, the se rights have been unduly restricted or plainly denied in the context of
peaceful protests .
10. Indeed, o nly protests that are peaceful are pr otected by international human rights
law . An assembly should be deemed peaceful if its organizers and participants have
peaceful intentions and do not use, advocate or incite violence; such features should be
presumed . Assembly organizers should not be he ld liable for the violent behaviour
committed by others. Instead, police have the duty to remove violent individuals from the
crowd in order to allow protesters to exercise their basic rights to assemble and express
themselves peacefully.
11. The organizat ion of a protest should not be subject to prior authorization from the
administrative authorities of the State , but at the most to a prior notification procedure, the
rationale of which is to allow State authorities to facilitate the exercise of the right to
freedom of peaceful assembly and to take appropriate measures to protect public safety and
order and the rights and freedoms of protester s and other individuals affected by the
protests. Spontaneous and simultaneous assemblies should be regulated by the same
procedure and should also be protected. In any case, organizers should not be criminalized
for not requesting an authorization.
12. When restricting the rights to freedom s of peaceful assembly, of opinion and
expression, and of association, the least intrusive means of achieving the legitimate
objective pursued by the authorities should always be given preference. Freedom to hold
and participate in peaceful protests is to be considered the rule , and limitations thereto
considered the exception. In thi s regard, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others
should not be used as an excuse to limit the exercise of peaceful protests . Complete
prohibition involving blanket bans on time and location does not comply with human rights
in the context of p eaceful protests, unless it is a measure of last resort, adopted to protect
lives.
13. The dispersal of assemblies should only be a measure of last resort. Law
enforcement authorities should not resort to force during peaceful assemblies , and they
should ensure that force is only used on an exceptional basis.
14. According to a rticle 4 , paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights , the right to life and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment are non -derogable rights . As such, i t is imperative that
States ensure prompt and adequate medical care for any person injured during a peaceful
protest and that th e injured person as well as his or her relatives are protected from any
threat of reprisal.
15. No one should be criminalized or subjected to any threats or acts of violence,
harassment, persecution, intimidation or reprisals for addressing human rights issues
through peaceful protest or for reporting on human rights violations an d abuses committed
in the context of peaceful protests . The protection of women, especially women human
rights defenders, must be guaranteed. Instances of gender -based violence occurring during
demonstrations should be investigated and prosecuted as a matt er of priority.
16. States must also ensure that anyone monitoring and reporting on violations and
abuses occurring during peaceful protests, including journalists, community media workers ,

A/HRC/22/28
7
other media professionals and bloggers , do so without fear of inti midation, legal and
physical harassment and violence. In this regard, the State has an obligation to protect them.
17. States have the obligation to ensu re that law enforcement officials are sufficiently
trained and equipped, particularly with regard to cr owd control and the use of force. In this
regard, reference should be made to the comprehensive work carried out by the
Organization for Security and Co -operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights (OSCE/ ODIHR ) and its Panel of E xperts on Freedom of Peaceful
Assembly.
18. Human rights defenders coalitions, national, regional and international networks for
communication of information, monitoring groups and support groups that could provide a
safe haven should be promoted and stren gthened. These groups can provide protection for
peaceful protesters as well as those monitoring peaceful protests.
19. Any reported excessive use of force or other human rights violations in the context
of peaceful protests should be investigated and pros ecuted promptly, impartially and in an
independent manner , in order to bring perpetrators to justice. This not only entails
guarantees that the violation be addressed, but also that it will not be repeated in the future.
Where human rights in the context o f peaceful protests are unduly restricted, the victim(s)
should have the right to obtain redress and to fair and adequate compensation. Specific
attention must be paid to victims belonging to the groups most at risk in this process.
20. In his contribution to this report, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary
or arbitrary ex ecutions made reference to a rticle 6 , paragraph 1, of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights regarding the right to life , and recalled that in its
general co mment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life , the Human Rights Committee considers
that States parties should take measures to, inter a lia, “prevent arbitrary killing by their own
security forces. ” In its view, t he deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter
of utmost gravity , therefore, the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in
which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities (para. 3). Moreover, the
Special Rapporteur referred to the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by
Law Enforcement Officials ,9 in particular principles 9, 12, 13 and 14 , and to t he Code of
Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials 10 which provides an interpretation of the limits on
the conduct of law enforcement forces.
21. The S pecial Rapporteur also referred to his report to the seventeenth session of the
Human Rights Council , where he concluded , based on a study of some 76 countries, that
many domestic legal systems do not adhere to international standards in respect of the use
of force during demonstrations (A/HRC/17/28, summary) . The Special Rapporteur also
highlighted several interconnected factors that shape a State’s response to protest and the
eventual consequences. The recognition by the State of the right to peaceful ass embly, both
at the political and legal levels, is a crucial element. When the right to peaceful assembly is
suppressed, there is a higher risk for demonstrations to escalate and turn violent. However,
thorough respect by the State of the right to peaceful assembly offers the opportunity to
defuse tensions and avoid negative consequences , such as potential loss of life.
22. In his report , the Special Rapporteur also underlines the need for greater codification
of international law applicable to demonstratio ns, recommending that “the basic principles
for managing demonstrations should be elaborated more clearly, so as to set out the
international law standards applicable to demonstrations (non -violent and violent; legal and

9 Adopted by the eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders , Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990.
10 Adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979.

A/HRC/22/28
8
illegal), with special reference to the use of (deadly) force by the police during
demonstrations. […] This process is important, not only in terms of providing clarity on the
applicable standards, but also in order to raise awareness and solicit collaboration for a
global law reform effort in respect of assembly rights” (para. 143).
23. Beyond legal frameworks, management of demonstrations , in practice , also requires
knowledge of crowd behavior , adequate equipment – including a range of less -than -lethal
weapons – and appropriate training of law enforcement officials , including in human rights .
The latter play an important role in ensuring that responses to protests do not lead to
escalated violence and human rights violations, including loss of life.
24. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudici al, summary or arbitrary executions also made
reference to a so-called “negotiated management” approach to the process of policing
assemblies. According to this approach , the task of the police is to protect rights and
facilitate, rather than frustrate, d emonstrations ; they should help to diffuse tension and
prevent a dangerous escalation of the situation . Several countries that follow this approach
hav e also formalized the role of the so -called “safety triangle” during demonstrations , based
on continuous communication and interaction between the organi zers of the protest, the
local or State authorities and the police , aimed at avert ing risks and ensur ing smooth
management of the assembly.
IV. National legislation, e ffective measures and best practices
A. Relevant national legislation
25. All States which provided input for this report indicated that the right to peaceful
assembly, which in some cases also makes reference to peaceful protest or demonstration,
is protected by the Constitution, specific l egislation or both.
26. Costa Rica observed that peaceful protest is used as a means to gather support from
civil society and the State on issues that affect those demonstrating, and is part of the
exercise of an active and participatory democracy. Accordi ng to i ts Constitutional Court ,
peaceful demonstrations are a manifestation of freedom of expression which enjoy judicial
protection .11
27. The Mongolian Constitution protects citizens’ freedom to peaceful demonstration
and assemblies . Mongolia also has a Law on Procedures to Organize Demonstrations and
Assemblies.
28. Switzerland indicated that the freedom to protest is essential in a State based on the
freedom of its citizens, and that this right is protected through provisions on freedom of
opinion and information , as well as freedom of association in the federal Constitution.
29. Spain noted that its Constitution recognizes the right of assembly and peaceful
protest without use of any weapons. It added that peaceful protest is legally characterized as
a collective demonstration of the freedom of expression by means of a temporary assembly
of persons whose purpose is to exchange or expose certain ideas, defend specific interests
or publicize problems or demands. Spain also stressed the close relationship in law between
the right of peaceful assembly and the right of freedom of expression. 12

11 Costa Rica, Constitutional Court, judgement No. 03020 (2000).
12 Spain, Constitutional Court, sentencia 96/2010 of 15 November 2010, FJ 3.

A/HRC/22/28
9
30. Similarly, t he constitutions of Bulgaria, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay and
Venezuela (Bolivian Republic of) protect the right to peaceful assembly and demonstration ,
while explicit ly stressing that this right should be exercised without recourse to “arms” . The
constitutions of Qatar and Bahrain protect the right to peaceful assembly, and both States
have also adopted national legislation ban ning the use of arms during assemblies .
31. Serbia indicated that the right to peaceful assembly i s laid down in its Constitution
and that during peaceful protests , citizens’ rights to freedom of thought and expression are
protected. Mauritius stated that peaceful protest s are protec ted by two different
constitutional provisions: the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of
assembly and association.
32. The Estonia n Constitution states that everyone has the right, without prior
permission, to assemble peacefully and hold meetings. However, i t also provides for
restriction to this right pursuant to a procedure provide d by law to ensure national security,
public order, morals, traffic safety and the safety of participants in a meeting, or to prevent
the spread of an in fectious disease. 13
33. Guatemala reported that the right to peaceful assembly may be restricted in certain
cases established in the Law on Public Order , taking into account the provisions of article
21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In order to ensure peace ,
security and the effective implementation of human rights, the Civil Security Forces
Support Act regulates the support provided by the Guatemalan armed forces to civil
security forces when working to prevent and combat or ganized and minor crimes .14 In
November 2012 , a Protocol on Inter -agency Action : Military Support to Civil Security
Forces , specif ying the legal framework for assistance , cooperation and coordination
between the Guatemalan armed and civil security forces , was adopted .15
B. Measures and best prac tices
Prior notification and authorization
34. While s ome States do not require any prior notification or prior authorization to hold
peaceful demonstrations , others may require one or the other. In certain situa tions, prior
notification or authorization is only required if the organizers intend to use public roads or
public areas , or when special facilities , such as stands or barriers , may have to be erected
for the demonstration.
35. Similarly, States diverge o n approaches to s pontane ous peaceful protests. Some
States which require prior notification or authorization may ban such demonstrations,
others may allow them , or others still may allow the demonstration even if it contravene s
legal requirements rergardin g prior notification or authori zation.
36. In Azerbaijan , notification must include the name, purpose, place and date of the
event, the approximate number of participants, and if a street march is held, its proposed
route, including starting place, distan ce and destination, as well as the name and contact
information of the organizers . However, s pontaneous demonstrations or protests do not
require written notification, but can be restricted or stopped. 16

13 Estonia, Constitution (1992), art. 47.
14 Guatemala, Act on the Support to Civil Security Forces, Decree No. 40 -2000 of 16 June 2000.
15 Guatemala, Protocol on Inter -agency Action: Military Support to Civil Security Forces, Government
order No. 285 -2012 o f 6 November 2012.
16 Azerbaijan, Law on Freedom of Assemblies of 22 February 2008, arts. 3 and 12.

A/HRC/22/28
10
37. In Estonia, t he Public Meetings Act states that a n organized public meeting has to be
registered at least four work ing days prior to the meeting at the rural municipality or city
government, when it is necessary to redirect traffic, erect a tent, stage, bleacher or any other
large -scale construction , or use sound or lighting equipment. All other public meetings have
to be registered with the police at least two hours prior to the meeting. Public meetings
cannot be held in certain places, including , inter alia, at border checkpoint s or closer than
300 metr es to the border, on Estonian defence forces territory or closer than 50 metr es to
defence forces territory , on bridge s, the railroad, in a mine, under high -voltage power lines,
an area where infectious disease is spreading or that is dangerous to persons.
38. The Democratic Republic of the Congo indicated that all public demonstrations must
obtain prior authorization from the competent administrative authorit ies , as State authorities
have the obligation to ensure security for protestors and maintain public order. The
Democratic Republic of the Congo further indicated that although spontaneous
demonstrations are illegal, they are nevertheless subject to the protection of State
authorities in order to maintain public order.
39. The Republic of Moldova indic ated that , further to legislative amendments in 2008,
it now has a notification procedure for assemblies, rather than a n authorization system.
According to the Law on Assemblies , any assembly with fewer than 50 participants can
take place without prior not ification. In the event that the assembly involves more than 50
people, the organizers must notify the local authorities five days prior to the event in order
to ensure that no other assemblies have been organized in the same place at the same time.
The Re public of Moldova indicated that the change from an authorization to a notification
system has led to an increase in the number of assemblies held and the number of
individuals exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
40 . In Qatar, Law No. 1 8/2004 on public meetings and demonstrations stipulates that
organizers of meetings or peaceful assemblies must obtain a licen ce from the Director
General of Public Security by submitting a written request seven days prior to the proposed
date of the event . The application is considered rejected if approval is not given three days
prior to the proposed date of the event . The organizers can request a review of the refusal
by the Ministry of Interior within 24 hours. If the Ministry does not respond to the review
request , it sh ould be considered a rejection. The National Human Rights Commission of
Qatar stated , however, that it has observed spontaneous peaceful protests by labourers
protesting against delays in pay ment of their salaries by companies . The Minis try of
Interior placed no restrictions on the protests, and only posted officers at the site of the
protest s to ensure they were peaceful. In Oman, an administrative coordination unit
between relevant public authorities has been mandated to receive request s for authorization
to hold peaceful protests and provides technical advice on these requests to the unit chief.
41. In Serbia , the Law on the Assembly of Citizens requires the organizer to submit an
application to hold a public assembly to the Ministry of the Interior at least 48 hours prior
to said assembly, and five days , in the case of movement, for example , a march by
participants.
42. Spain stated that according to its Constitution, the holding of a peaceful assembly
does not require a ny prior authori zation. 17 Organic Law 9/1983 regulates assemblies and
demonstrations held in places where the re is public transit. Organizers must inform the
competent public authorities in writing a minimum of 10 days in advance, except for urgent
reasons , in which case the authorities may be informed in writing a minimum of 24 hours in
advance. The competent public authorit ies may prohibit a demonstration or propose

17 Spain, Constitution (1978), art. 21.

A/HRC/22/28
11
modification of the itinerary or the tim e of the public gathering , if it considers that the event
may pose a threat to public order or danger to persons or property. The decision of the
public authorit ies can be appealed before an administrative body within 48 hours in the
presence of all parties and prior to the date of the planned event. The decision of the
administrative tribunal can be appeal ed before the Constitutional Court.
43. In Switzerland, the right to demonstrate in public spaces derives from the right s to
freedom of expression and freedom of assembly as protected under the federal
Constitution. 18 Ho wever, demonstrations may be subject to prior authorization, if provided
for by law, to coordinate the use of public areas and to guarantee public safety.
Management of public areas falls within the competence of the cantonal and communal
authorities. In the cantons of Bern, Geneva and Graubünden , the organizers of
demonstrations are reqired to obtain prior authorization to hold demonstrations . In practice,
however, the procedure functions like a notification system , as demonstrations are almost
never prohi bited. Spontaneous demonstrations are not subject to a prior authorization
procedure in Switzerland. Refusal by the competent authorities to grant authorization for a
peaceful protest may be appeal ed before the first instance jurisdiction at the commune
level ; the Federal Tribunal would be the final national court to hear an appeal.
44. The Commonw ealth Secretariat highlighted that “authorities must be notified of a
proposed demonstration or protest unless the circumstances are such that prior notification
is not possible; authorities have no authority to stop a demonstration or protest , but may
stipulate reasonable conditions to safeguard against potential violence; prohibition is a last
resort , where there is a genuine threat of violence if the event were to take place; judicial
review is to be made available against decisions of the authorities; organizers are to be
made aware by the authorities of the conditions of a demonstration or protest and their
liability for any damages caused.” 19
45. The European C ourt of Human Rights has placed limitations on the dissolution of
peaceful demonstrations spontaneously organized in response to events that would
foreseeably result in demonstrations. The Court said that “in special circumstances when an
immediate respons e, in the form of a demonstration, to a political event might be justified, a
decision to disband the ensuing, peaceful assembly solely because of the absence of the
requisite prior notice, without any illegal conducts by the participants, amounts to a
dis proportionate restriction on freedom of peaceful assembly.” 20 Moreover, the European
Court of Human Rights determined that the absence of an effective appeals procedure
against a decision to forbid an assembly prior to the proposed date of said assembly is a
violation of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms .21
46. The Defending Dissent Foundation , based in the United States of America , argued
that notice or permits should not be required for assemblies o f less than 50 people, or when
the protest takes place on public sidewalks, or when the assembly is for the purpose of an
immediate and spontaneous expression of views in response to a public event. Lawyers for
Con stitutional Rights and Freedoms (JURIX) advocate s that ordinary participants of

18 Switzerland, Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation (1999), arts. 16 and 22.
19 Commonwealth Secretariat , Freedom of Expression, Association and Assembly , Best Practice Series
(London, 2003), pp. 21 -22.
20 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Bukta and others v. Hungary , Application No. 25691/04,
judg ement of 17 July 2007, para. 36.
21 Ibid., Baczkowski a nd others v. Poland , Application No. 1543/06, judg ement of 3 May 2007. The
Office of the Human Rights Defender in Poland was involved in the case from the outset, arguing that
the introduction of a requirement to obtain permission for an assembly on a publ ic road is a violation
of the freedom of assembly.

A/HRC/22/28
12
peaceful assemblies should not be detained even in cases when regulatory authorities and
organizers do not reach an agreement about the time, place an d manner of the event.
Peaceful protests should be allowed to be h eld in front of their intended audience and with
maximum publicity. The procedure for obtaining the consent of the regulatory authorities,
including with respect to the time and place of the protest, should not be used as a tool to
frustrate the purpose of such demonstrations.
47. With regard to protests notified to the Copenhagen police, t he Danish Institute for
Human Righ ts indicated that the police initiate s dialogue with the organizers prior to the
scheduled date to ensure the protest will proceed peace fully. The Zimbabwe Human Rights
NGO Forum supports legal reform efforts to transfer the power to ban demonstrations from
the police to the courts , and to remove the obligation for demonstrators to carry identity
cards.
48. In their jurisprudence , r egional courts have addressed the issue as to whether
peaceful protests can be restricted if they take place in public areas or on public roads that
are used intensively . The argument that closing public roads for demonstrations would
cause undue inconvenience to others was rejected by the European Court of Human Rights .
The Court stated that “any demonstration in a public place inevitably causes a certain level
of disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, and that it is important for the
publi c authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the
freedom of assembly guaranteed by articl e 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all
substance.” 22 The European Court of Justice reached a similar conclusion in a case where a
protest on a major transit route through the Alps resulted in the effective closure of the
motorway for almost 30 hours. 23 The Inter -American Commission on Human Rights
(IACHR) also arrived at a similar conclusion. 24
Role of authorities, in pa rticular the police, during peaceful protest s
49. The Danish Institute for Human Rights reported that the Copenhagen police has
initiated social media communication as of 2012, and updates protestors and participants in
public events via Facebook and Twitt er with information related to the protest or event.
Australia reported that police functions in the context of peaceful protests are conducted in
a manner that respects human rights and freedoms.
50. Montenegro stated that the police maintains communicat ion and cooperates with the
organizers of a peaceful protest during the event , as well as with other entities involved,
such as agencies providing physical or health protection or the medi a. Madagascar stressed
the role of the Ministry of Internal Security and the Police in guarantee ing the free exercise
of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental freedoms , including peaceful protest. Law
enforcement forces ensure compliance with rules regarding peaceful protests , while
maintaining public order before , durin g and after protests.
51. The Australian Castan Centre for Human Rights Law argued that police should wear
identification at all times so that there may be some recourse if they use disproportionate
force. It underlined that police should be given guidance in appropriate crowd control
mechanisms. The Centre raised the issue of police response to civil disobedience. Recalling
the historical importance of civil disobedience as a form of protest, even though it may not

22 ECtHR, Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia , Application No. 10877/04, judg ement of 23 October 2008, para.
44.
23 European Court of Justice, Eugen Schmidberger v. Republic of Austria , Case C -112/00, judg ement of
12 June 2003.
24 Organization of American States, IACHR, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights , 31
December 2009 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II), para. 193.

A/HRC/22/28
13
be protected under either domestic or int ernational human rights law , the Centre advocate s
that punishment for such acts should be proportionate, and that protestors should not be
held up as example s.
52. The Spanish Fundaci ón Intervida emphasized that persons under 18 years of age
must receive particular protection against violence and inhuman or degrading treatment in
the context of peaceful demonstrations.
53. The Defending Dissent Foundation considers that the role of the police at peaceful
protests should be crowd management and that communi cation and voluntary compliance
should be emphasized . All law enforcement personnel should wear or display visible
identification and plainclothes or undercover officers or informants should not be placed in
a crowd. The police presence should not be dispr oportionate to the size of the crowd, and
the police should not be armed with lethal weapons. Horses should not be used for crowd
control, the police should not photograph or videotape peaceful protestors, and should be
prohibited from making pre -emptive a rrests and dispersals. Moreover, law enforcement
officers should document all arrests and promptly pro cess them; arrested persons should be
made aware of t heir legal rights. It advocated that tear gas, pepper spray or other “less than
lethal” weapons shoul d not be used on peaceful demonstrators.
54. The Ombudsman of Panama highlighted the importance of dialogue and
consultation with all parties involved, which contribute to the protection of human rights
during peaceful protests. Oman also emphasi zed the i mportance of communication with
public authorities during protests.
55. Various NGOs also raised concerns about the misuse of less -than -lethal weapons .
Specific concerns were raised by Physicians for Human Rights and the Castan Centre for
Human Rights Law with respect to certain forms of non -lethal weapons use d to control
demonstrations, including guns with rubber bullets, tear gas, birdshot and taser guns.
Physicians for Human Rights recommended that States ensure access to medical care for
any injured pr otestor or security officer , and protect the medical neutrality of health -care
professionals who treat injured protestors or security officers.
56. The Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) addressed the police tactic of
containment , or “kettling ,” o f per sons, including both protestors and bystanders, for a
period of several hours , as a crowd -containment measure. The European Court of Human
Right s found that the use of such containment measures was not a violation of the
Convention when it is necessary to avert “a real risk of serious injury or damage ,” and
where it is the “least intrusive and most effective means to be applied.” 25 While accepting
that th e police tactic of containment is legal in situations where there is a risk of serious
violence, Netpol a cknowledged that th e practice is frequently used as a response to
spontaneous and unauthorized peaceful protests, and expressed concern that th e practice is
not used only for the narrow purposes for which it is intended. Netpol further alleged that
police tactics such as containment and stop -and -search are frequently used by police to
collect personal data on protestors. It argued that the gathering and processing of such data
does not have an adequate foundation in law and that it has a chilling effect on participation
in protest activities.
57. The Danish Institute for Human Rights raised the issue of the treatment of large
numbers of persons provisionally detained during protest activities in Denmark ,
highlight ing one case in which the detainees did not h ave access to toilet facilities and were
left on the cold pavement for several hours .

25 EctHR (Grand Chamber), Austin and others v. United Kingdom , Applications Nos. 39692/09,
40713/09, and 41 008/09, judg ement of 15 March 2012, paras. 59 and 66.

A/HRC/22/28
14
58. The Commonwealth Secretariat 26 advocate s that police present during protest s
should apply the principles of proportionality, legality, accountability and necessity
(PLAN) . The Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association expressed the view that organizers of protests should not incur any financial
charges for the provision of public services during an assembly, nor should assembly
organizers and participants be considered responsible (or held liable) for the unlawful
conduct of others or made responsible for the maintenance of public order. 27
Investigations of violence and accountability
59. The National Human Rights Commission o f India and the South African Human
Rights Commission both indicated that the ir role is to investigate and make findings and
recommendations when protests result in serious violence, including deaths. They also
indicated that their institutions should enga ge in public dialogue on the issues that le ad to
demonstrations and human rights issues arising from protest activities.
60 . The Malawi Human Rights Commission state d that it had conducted an
investigation into demonstrations in July 2011 that had turned violent and resulted in the
death of 19 people a s well as destruction of property. The Ombudsman of Venezuela
(Bolivar Republic of) indicated that it tries to mediate conflicts aris ing from peaceful
protests and makes recommendations to the competent bodie s of the State for possible
action .
61. Physicians for Human Rights urged States to establish fair and transparent
accountability mechanisms for security forces who have engaged in the excessive use of
force against peaceful protesters , and to conduct impa rtial and independent investigations
of any allegations of harassment or intimidation of protestors. Turkey reported that where
the authorities find that a disproportionate use of force is used by security forces during
peaceful protests or where such comp laints are received, the Ministry of the Interior assigns
inspectors to investigate such incidents, in accordance with its “zero tolerance policy
towards torture and ill -treatment.”
62. The Russian Federation referred to two bodies created in recent years, which are
functioning success fully in identifying human rights violations, including in the context of
peaceful protest. P ublic oversight councils have been established and they communicate
cases of serious abuses of human rights that are also the object of attention by civil society
organization s. The Public Council of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs comprises
representatives of the human rights community and addresses cases of human rights abuses.
Oman reported that its National Human Rights Ins titution is mon itoring and providing
advice on all issues related to human rights violations, including violations of human rights
in the context of peaceful protests.
63. Greenpeace addressed the issue of civil disobedience, which it characterize s as
deli berate non -compliance with a legal requirement. It argued that legitimate and
constructive protest should not always be subject to legal sanction, even if it violates the
law. It referred to a case where 46 Greenpeace activists had intentionally violated t he law to
illustrate that security was inadequate at a nuclear facility in Australia ; they were initially
convicted of trespass, but on appeal , the convictions were set aside. The presiding judge
stated that “[…] it was not the case, in my view , that the o bjectives and motives of the
defendants could have been achieved by demonstrating at the front gate. As has already

26 Commonwealth Secretariat, Commonwealth Manual on Human Rights Training for Police (London,
2006).
27 See A/HRC/20/27, para. 31.

A/HRC/22/28
15
been noted […] , one of the major objectives and motives of the appellants was that the
woeful security inherent in the facility should be de monstrated in graphic terms.” 28
Good practices contributing to impartiality of the State
64. The impartiality of the State has been identified by the National Human Rights
Commission of India as being of central importance in the exercise of the right o f peaceful
protest. The Commission indicated how, in a variety of situations, a lack of impartiality
could adversely affect the right of peaceful protest. For example, t he government in power
may encourage and even support pro -government demonstrations, but forbid, restrict or
disrupt peaceful protest by the political opposition and individuals or groups dissatisfied
with government policies and practices. A State may also target persons supporting subjects
that are viewed as controversial or incompatible with mainstream values or beliefs , or
inflict heavy fines on organizers, participants or opposition leaders who participate in such
protests , or subject them to detention or imprisonment. In extreme cases, governments may
commit serious human rights violat ions such as torture or ill treatment of persons in
custody , or try to obstruct medical care to those who are injured.
65. A variety of good practices can contribute to address ing lack of impartiality by the
State. For instance, n ational human rights insti tutions can conduct investigations into a
State ’s impartial ity in a given instance and publicly report on their findings. The South
African Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Human Rights Defender of Poland
and the Office of the Ombudsman of Bulgar ia reported that they play a role in monitoring
protests and engaging in dialogue with relevant stakeholders.
66. Adverse decisions of administrative authorities , prohibiting or restricting peaceful
protest , should be appealable before independent and impa rtial bodies, including courts.
Media organizations should be allowed to carry out their work freely and to report without
restrictions on demonstrations. NGOs and human right defenders have a role to play in
monitoring peaceful assemblies and their polici ng, 29 and o bservers from diplomatic
missions, regional and international organizations may also play a role in monitoring
demonstrations when the impartiality of the State is put into question. In this respect,
OSCE/ODIHR’s Handbook on Monitoring Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (2011) can be
used to build capacity .
The role of the media
67. Reporters Without Borders stated that the media play a key role during peaceful
protests in promoting the full and effective exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly. It underlined that media coverage of demonstrations and public gatherings
represented one of the principal reasons for exactions against journalists, and noted an
increase in aggressions against journalists in 2011. Detention, questioning or convo cation
by authorities have been used to restrain the free flow of information, as well as violence,
destruction of material, confiscation of recordings, assaults on media offices, expulsions or
denial of visas.
68. It recommended that media coverage be re cognized as an element of protection of
human rights in the context of peaceful protests; that the right to information should not be
conditioned on the holding of a press card or press accreditation; that States respect the
right to information and recogn ize the right of journalists to have access to places of public
protest, to film and interview ; that they have respect for the physical security of journalists

28 New South Wales District Court, Regina v. Kirkwood et al. , DCZ EF -C, judgement of 15 May 2002,
(unpublished), p. 5.
29 See A/HRC/20/27, para. 50.

A/HRC/22/28
16
as well as their material and for fundamental principles , such as the confidentiality of their
sources. States should prohibit the refusal to issue visas or to give accreditation to
journalists, as well as their expulsion; police forces should respect the neutrality of
journalist s and should receive training on respect for international norms on free dom of
information and respect for the work of the media during demonstrations . In addition, the
State should effectively combat impunity for exaction against journalists by systematically
prosecuti ng those responsible for criminal acts and imposing discip linary measures.
69. The organization ARTICLE 19 also underlined the role of the media, arguing that
attacks on journalists and “citizen journalists” covering assemblies should be regarded as a
violation of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly as well as the right to freedom of
expression. It cited the judgement of the Inter -American Court of Human Rights in a case
concerning an attack on a video journalist who was attempting to film a demonstration. The
Court concluded that disseminating information a bout such protests enables those who see
it “to observe and verify whether, during the demonstration, the members of the armed
forces were performing their duties correctly, with an appropriate use of force.” 30
New technologies
70. New technologies, such as the I nternet, e -mail, text messaging, Twitter, Facebook,
as well as mobile phones, have changed th e way people peacefully protest , and have also
challenged traditional notions about what is a peaceful assembly. 31 ARTICLE 19 noted that
in 2010, the U nited States of America Secretary of State analogized online platforms as the
modern town square for the purpose of assemblies and argued that the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly applies to online protests.
71. The Association for Progressive Communicati ons (APC) observed that new forms of
online protests are not well covered by national legislation and human rights law. Legally
permitted online protest remains to be defined. APC referred to distributed denial -of-
service (DDoS) attacks, an often -used form of online p rotest. DDoS attacks involve the
continuous flooding of a website by many users with useless information, which can cause
the website to slow down or go offline due to server overload . APC noted that a DDoS
attack can be an act of protest and c ould be considered the online version of a sit -in. A
DDoS attack will usually make a website unavailable for a short time until the attacks cease
– similar to protesters outside a building stopping business activities for a limited period
until the protest ceases. Such attacks alone do not generally compromise the security of a
site or allow for stealing information , unless the target site is hacked and exploited while it
is weakened. A German court ruled that DDoS attacks could, depending on the purpose of
the attack, be considered a legitimate form of protest , and not a crime. APC stated that the
law needed to draw a distinction between DDoS attacks for protest activities and attacks
conducted by “botnets” controlled by hackers which harm both their target s and the
unwilling owners of zombie machines used in botnet attacks. APC said that people using
DDoS tools should be assessed differently from those using botnets.

30 Inter -American Court of Human Rights, Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia . Preliminary
Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. judg ement of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248.
31 See A/HRC/20/27, para. 32. The Special Rapporteur also underlined that human rights in the context
of peaceful protests should apply both offline and online, and agreed with the Special Rapporteur on
the promotion and protection of the right t o freedom of opinion and expression that all States should
ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest, (para.
84(k)).

A/HRC/22/28
17
Training and guidance
72. A number of States 32 and national human rights institutions indi cated that they
provide human rights training to administrative authorities and/ or the police as a measure to
promote and protect human right s in the context of peaceful protest s.
73. Azerbaijan mentioned that its training program me s included such topic s as the role
of the police during demonstrations ; demonstrations as manifestation of the principle of
democracy ; cooperation among organizers and police ; chain police activity ; strategies for
decreasing tension ; managing various gatherings ; managing mass disorder ; regulating roads
and other places ; and respect for and protection of human dignity.
74. Paraguay reported that the Manual on the Use of Force , issued by the National
Police in 2011 , was an important action to promote and protect the right of peac eful protest.
Slovenia indicated that it provides training to the police with the objective of giving law
enforcement officers an advanced knowledge of constitutional law and human rights,
including human rights protection when police powers are used. It a lso has a special
training programme entitled “Awareness of stereotypes, overcoming prejudice and
prevention of discrimination in a multi -cultural society .”
75. Turkey stated that the Directive on the Procedure and Principles Relating to the
Conduct of Per sonnel in Charge during Assembly and Demonstration Marches was adopted
in 2011 with a view to providing nationwide uniformity, including with respect to the
degree of force used to ensure proportionality.
Research activities
76. Hungary’s Office of the C ommissioner for Fundamental Rights has undertaken a
project on the freedom of assembly which includes an investigation of how law
enforcement handles reports and how far the measures taken during even ts meet the
requirements set by the Constitution and app licable legal regulations. Since its launch , more
than 150 events have been inve stigated. It found that demonstrations are more often
crossing national boundaries, and demonstration tactics are changing and developing.
Based on the conclusion that police e xpertise needed to become international , a project was
initiated with 20 partner organization s from 11 countries, including law enforcement
organs, research an d educational institutions, the national police and the Commissioner for
Fundamental Rights.
V . Conclusions
77. Peaceful protest s are a fundamental aspect of a vibrant democracy . States
should recognize the positive role of peaceful protests as a means to strengthen human
rights and democracy. They should guarantee the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly, freedom of association and freedom of opinion and expression, which are
essential components of democracy and indispensable to the full enjoyment of all
human rights.
78. The promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful
protests require not only an adequate legal framework , but also continuous efforts for
their effective implementation . Dialogue between protest organizers, administrative
authorities and the police, as well as human rights training programmes for police

32 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, India, Madagascar, Mauritius, Moldova , Montenegro,
Morocco, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain and Turkey.

A/HRC/22/28
18
forc es, including on the use of force during protests, can also contribute to the
promotion and protection of human right s linked to peaceful protest.