GE.11 -17457
Human Rights Council
Nineteen th session
Agenda item s 2 and 3
Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights and reports of the Offi ce 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
Summary of the Human Rights Council panel discussion on
the promotion and protection of human rights in the context
of peaceful protests prepared by the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Summary
The present summary was prepared in accordance with decision 17/120 of the
Human Rights C ouncil, in which the Council decided to convene at its eighteenth session a
panel discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful
protests, with a particular focus on the ways and means to improve the protection of the se
rights in such contexts in line with international human rights law. The panel discussion,
organized by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, took
place on 13 September 2011.

United Nations A /HRC/1 9/40

General Assembly Distr.: General
19 December 201 1

Original: English

A/HRC/19/40
2
Contents
Paragraphs Page
I. Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 1–3 3
II. Statement by the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, the President
of Maldives and contributions of panellists ………………………….. ……………………….. 4–39 3
A. Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights ………………………….. ………….. 4–6 3
B. Mohamed Nasheed ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 7–12 4
C. Maina Kiai ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 13 –18 5
D. Santiag o Cant on ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 19 –23 6
E. Michael Hamilton ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 24 –30 8
F. Lake Tee Khaw ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 31 –34 9
G. Bahey el -din Hassan ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 35 –39 11
III. Summary of the discussion ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 40 –60 12
A. Issues raised by stakeholders ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 41 –53 12
B. Responses of panellists and concluding remarks by the Presi dent of the
Human Rights Council ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 54–60 15

A/HRC/19/40
3
I. Introduction
1. On 13 September 201 1, during its eigh teenth session, the Human Rights Council
held a panel discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of
peaceful protests, with a particular focus on the ways and means to improve the protection
of these rights in such contexts in line with international human rights law , pursuant to its
decision 17/120 . The Council further requested “the Office of the United Nations High
Commissi oner for Human Rights to liaise with relevant special procedures, States and other
stakeholders, including relevant United Nations bodies and agencies, with a view to
ensuring their participation in the panel discussion” . The Office was also requested to
prepare the present summary.
2. The panel discussion aimed to: (a) reaffirm the importance of the right of each
individual to express his or her grievances and/or aspirations through peaceful protests; (b)
draw the attention to the obligations of States, in the context of peaceful protests, bearing in
mind that States have the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human
rights; (c) identify ways and means, including best practices, to improve the protection of
human rights in the context of peaceful protests in line with international law; and (d)
formulate recommendations on how to improve the promotion and protection of human
rights in the context of peaceful protests at all levels, including by the Human Rights
Council.
3. The panel di scussion was moderated by the President of the Human Rights Council,
Laura Dupuy Lasserre (Uruguay) , and opened by the Deputy High Commissioner for
Human Rights, Kyung -wha Kang. Mohamed Nasheed, President of Maldives , delivered a
high -level keynote s peech. The panellists were: Maina Kiai, Special Rapporteur on the
rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association ; Santiago Canton, Executive
Secretary, Inter -American Commission on Human Rights; Mich ael Hamilton, Secretary to
the Panel of Experts on t he Freedom of Assembly, Organization for Security and Co –
operation in Europe (OSCE) /Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR) ; Lake Tee Khaw, Vice -Chair of, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia,
SUHAKAM ; and Bahey el -din Hassan, Genera l Director, Cairo Institute for Human Rights
Studies.
II. Statement by the Deputy High Commissioner for Human
Rights , the President of Maldives and contributions of
panellists
A. Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights
4. The Deputy High Commissioner f or Human Rights, in her opening remarks,
commended the Council for placing the important issue of the promotion and protection of
human rights in the context of peaceful protests high on its agenda. She noted that the panel
took place against the backdrop of a historical turn of events during the last ten months,
which had seen brave women and men young and old peacefully taking to the streets in
several countries in the Middle East and North Africa, and in other regions, prompted by a
profound desire for i ncreased respect for their fundamental human rights. However, their
peaceful protests in far too many instances were met with brutal repression, through
summary, extrajudicial or arbitrary executions ; arbitrary detention ; enforced
disappearances ; and tortu re and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Deputy High Commissioner highlighted that such human rights violations were

A/HRC/19/40
4
denounced by the High Commissioner in her reports and statements on the situations in a
number of countries, i ncluding in Bahrain, Belarus, Cote d’Ivoire, the Islamic Republic of
Iran, Egypt, the then Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia
and Yemen. She stressed that when peaceful protests occur, States have the responsibility to
respon d in a manner that promotes and protects human rights, and pr event human rights
violations. The authorities should not view peaceful protests as a threat, but rather engage
in an open, inclusive and meaningful national dialogue to address protestors’ legit imate
demands.
5. The Deputy High Commissioner reminded the Council that it had addressed the
issue of the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests on
repeated occasions through its examination of country -specific situa tions, including in
respect of Belarus, Cote d’Ivoire, the then Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab
Republic, as well as through the adoption of resolution 15/21 on the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and association.
6. The Deputy High Comm issioner noted that she was sure that the panel’s views and
approaches to the issue wo uld strengthen the resolve of the Council to reaffirm the
importance of the right of each individual to express his or her grievances and/or
aspirations through peaceful protests, and contribute to the development of an appropriate
response by this Council, and by the international community as a whole.
B. Mohamed Nasheed
7. President Mohamed Nasheed of Maldives, stated that he had been invited to the
panel discussion as a President, but stood before the Council as a peaceful protester,
someone who ha d spent much of his adult life speaking out against leaders who place their
own interests over those of their people, leaders who sought power for power’s sake. He
stressed th at the r ecent events across North Africa and the Middle East represent ed a
defining geopolitical moment, a time of awakening when Muslims across the world we re
standing up as one to demand equality, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Th ose
develo pments provide d a fitting rebuttal to those, inside and outside of Islam, who claim
that such a religion wa s not compatible with democracy.
8. Mr. Nasheed further stated that 2011 would come to be seen as a tipping point for
peaceful protests, with the de mocratization of information: the use of the Internet, social
networking sites and mobile phones to break the State’s stranglehold on the news media.
The use of modern communication technology ha d allowed those with grievances to
mobilize and spread their message. Crucially, modern media also provide d a lens through
which the outside world could witness events unfold and learn the truth. Th e year’s p rotests
show ed that the power of G overnments to control information ha d been broken forever.
Today, the only viable option for States wa s to listen to the grievances of protesters and to
try to address them.
9. Mr. Nasheed expressed his regret that the G overnments of first the then Libya n Arab
Jamahiriya and now the Syria n Arab Republic had chosen to deny th at new reality. They
had responded to the upwelling of popular protest, not with dialogue and reform, but with
intimidat ion and violence. The international community ha d read with concern the
conclusions of the commission of inquiry on the then Libyan Arab Jam ahiriya and the fact –
finding mission on the Syrian Arab Republic that human rights violations committed in
both countries might amount to crimes against humanity. As soon as any G overnment
chose to rule by the gun rather than by consent, it los t its legiti macy and its right to govern.
10 . Mr. Nasheed added that p eaceful protests we re an important part of a wider process
of reform and transition. Presenting the example of his own country where a protest

A/HRC/19/40
5
movement had started e ight years previously , against an autocratic system of Government,
and for a better, fairer system of G overnment, for equality and for justice, he stated that
Maldives, like Tunisia, Egypt and others, wa s in a process of transition. It wa s the long –
term outcome of that process – not the s hort -term toppling of a regime – that w ould
determine whether the aspirations of the protesters were successfully met.
11 . Mr. Nasheed then identified certain challenges shared by countries in transition,
including by the Maldives. One challenge wa s to e stablish and strengthen independent
institutions, to ensure that democracy and human rights we re guaranteed regardless of who
wa s in power. A second challenge relate d to transiti onal justice and reconciliation: t o move
forward, the search for truth and jus tice must be placed within an overall framework of
national reconciliation. A third challenge wa s to rebuild the economic fabric of the country :
people could not properly enjoy democratic freedoms if their basic needs we re left
unfulfilled.
12. Mr. Nashee d concluded by hoping that the panel discussion would send out a clear
message to Governments everywhere that peaceful protest should not be viewed as a threat ,
but as an opportunity to connect with the people, understand their concerns and work
together t o improve society. If G overnments did not adopt th at enlightened approach, if
they chose aggression over discussion and entrenchment over reform, then in today’s
globali zed world, it wa s increasingly clear that they would fail and, most likely, they would
fall.
C. Maina Kiai
13. Maina Kiai, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and
of association , stated that in his 25 years of experience as a human rights defender in Kenya
and at the international level, the right for everyone to express their grievances and/or
aspirations for change, including civil, political , economic , social and cultural , through
peaceful protests and other non -violent ways, ha d been central. Th at right wa s indeed at the
heart of any democratic society, for that wa s how ordinary citizens could peacefully
influence and alert their Governments on their issues. Importantly, participating in peaceful
protests wa s an alternative to violence and armed force as a means of expression and
change , which should be suppo rted. Peaceful protest must thus be protected, and protected
robustly.
14. Mr. Kiai emphasized that protesting in a peaceful manner entail ed the enjoyment
and exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression and association,
among others . These rights are guaranteed under international and regional human rights
law, and facilitate the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. Essentially, States
had three obligations: (a) to refrain from committing violations, including through t he use
of excessive force, against individuals exercising their rights to peaceful assembly,
expression and association; (b) to protect individuals exercising these rights from abuses
committed by non -State actors; and (c) to fulfil these rights by taking positive measures to
prevent any violations from occurring, and to ensure that everyone could freely and
effectively exercise such rights. When violations occur red , States ha d an obligation to
thoroughly investigate such acts and provide effective remedy t o victims. These obligations
under international human rights law continued to apply during times of armed conflict ,
together with international humanitarian law. They were similarly applicable in situations
of internal disturbances and tension which did n ot meet the threshold of armed con flict.
15. Mr. Kiai noted that t he rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression and
association could be limited , however on very restricted grounds in accordance with
international law, and such restrictions must be proportionate to the aim pursued. In
addition, these rights may be derogated from during a state of emergency. Nevertheless,

A/HRC/19/40
6
other rights pertinent in the context of peaceful protests, such as the right to life and the
right to be free from torture or cru el, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, must
be guaranteed by States to all individuals under all circumstances . Mr. Kiai added that t he
use of force by law enforcement officials during peaceful protests wa s governed by
international law and it was in th at area that most violations and difficulties ar ose. Soft law
provisions , i.e. the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic
Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials , aim ed at
guiding law enforcemen t officials when policing peaceful protests.
16. Mr. Kiai further noted the increased use of the Internet, and other information and
communication technology, including mobile phones, as tools that citizens could use in
order to organize effective and pea ceful protests and assemblies. However, he expressed
concern that, at the same time, some States attempt ed to clamp down on these tools to deter
peaceful assembly.
17. Mr. Kiai observed that , in spite of th ose clear and unambiguous provisions of
internati onal law, peaceful protests across the world continue d to be brutally repressed in
many countries. This was deliberate, and many States lack ed the political will to respect the
dignity of their citizens who peacefully sought to implement their economic, so cial,
cultural, political and civil rights. He added that , although everyone might not like what
peaceful protesters we re asking for, everyone must defend their right to demand it
peacefully.
18. Mr. Kiai encouraged the Council to continue its deliberatio n on this pressing issue,
and made the following recommendation for the consideration of the international
community, including the Council: (a) f ollowing the positive example of the OSCE
Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, a similar tool guiding M ember States of the
United Nations in addressing peaceful protests, including spontaneous ones, should be
designed, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders ; (b) Member States should ensure
that policing of protests wa s done in a manner that respect ed human rights. Capacity –
building and technical support should be made available to those Member States that
need ed it; (c) l aw enforcement authorities should be held personally and fully accountable
for human rights violations related to the exercise of t he rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly, expression and association. Th at accountability should be ensured both
internally , within the individual organization, as well as externally, by an independent and
democratic oversight body, as well as by the cour ts of law ; (d) Member States should
facilitate Internet access to all individuals, with the least restrictions ; and (e) Member States
should foster an open society in their countries, including allowing expression of dissent
and providing through free and fair elections ways in which citizens could change their
Government if they so wish ed.
D. Santiago Canton
19. Santiago Canton, Executive Secretary, Inter -American Commission on Human
Rights (IACHR) , stated that IACHR had identified that the lack of compl iance with the
obligation of respect for , and guarantee of , the right of assembly and freedom of expression
by the States of the region resulted in acts of generalized violence that ha d also seriously
affected the right to life, physical integrity, freedom and personal security of the persons
participating in public protests. The Commission consider ed that States ha d the duty to
allow the exercise of th at right from the moment the administrative authorities receive d
notice of the intention of persons to und ertake a public and peaceful protest. However ,
States also had to investigate and prosecute those persons that perpetrate d violent acts
against the life or integrity of the protesters, i ncluding acts by State agents. In th at regard,

A/HRC/19/40
7
the competent instituti ons of the State ha d a duty to design operating plans and procedures
that would facilitate the exercise of the right of assembly.
20 . Mr. Canton pointed out that IACHR consider ed that the purpose of regulating the
right to peaceful assembly could not be t o create the basis for prohibiting the meeting or the
demonstration. On the contrary, regulations requiring , for example, advance notice, exist ed
for the purpose of informing the authorities so that they could take measures to facilitate the
exercise of th e right without significantly disturbing the normal activities of the rest of the
community.
21 . Mr. Canton stressed that p ublic protests could only be limited in order to prevent
serious and imminent risks for the safety of the persons involved or third persons and only
after attempting to prevent the supposed risk by changing the original condition of the
protest ; for example, by changing the time at and date on which it would take place. In
order to prevent an inadequate intervention in a public protest by State forces – which could
result in violation of human rights – the State ha d the duty t o guarantee that police forces
were aware of their rules of conduct and ha d the professional training needed to perform in
situations involving mass concentrations of people, so as to create the conditions that would
enable th ose events to unfold in accordance with the established regulations and without
infringing upon other human rights.
22. IACHR had highlighted that if it bec ame necessary to intervene in a prot est because
violence ha d occurred , it should be the exclusive competence of the police forces, duly
trained, to control the situatio n and never of the armed forces; and i f it bec ame necessary to
resort to physical means to face disturbance s of public order , the members of the State’s
armed forces and security bodies would use only those means that we re indispensable to
control ling the situation in a rational and proportional manner, and respecting the rights to
life and to humane treatment. In its report on the situation of human rights defenders in the
Americas ,1 IACHR listed a series of administrative controls that should be established by
States to ensure only exceptional use of force in public demonstrations, in cases where it
wa s necessary, through meas ures for planning, prevention and the investigation of cases in
which an abuse of force might have occurred.
23. IACHR consider ed that when it bec ame necessary to impose restrictions on th at
form of expression, the State should conduct a rigorous analysis of the interests it intend ed
to protect by way of the restriction, taking into account the high level of protection merited
by the right to assembly and the freedom of expression as rights that g ave form to citizen
participation and the oversight of State actions in public matters . Although on certain
occasions the exercise of the right of assembly might affect the routine of a place or other
rights that deserve d protection from the State, such as freedom of movement, the
Commission consider ed that th ose a lterations we re part of the mechanics of a pluralistic
society, where diverse interest coexist ed, which could sometimes contradict each other, but
that ha d to be able to find the spaces and channel to express themselves. Lastly , the
Commission wa s aware of the increasing use of criminal law against those who participate d
in public protests and who we re accused of perturbing the public order or even of
perpetrating other crimes , when in reality they we re asserting their rights in a peaceful
manner.

1 IACHR, document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124, Doc. 5 rev.1, para. 68. Available from
www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Defenders/defenderstoc.htm .

A/HRC/19/40
8
E. Micha el Hamilton
24. Michael Hamilton, Secretary to the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts on the Freedom
of Assembly, stated that the impetus to establish the Panel of Experts on Freedom of
Peaceful Assembly had arisen from a deb ate at the 2003 OSCE/ODIHR Human Dimen sion
Implementation Meeting , which had noted deteriorating conditions for, or a complete
failure to protect, the enjoyment of freedom of assembly in several OSCE participating
States. Among the concerns which placed freedom of assembly high on ODIHR agenda
were instances of harassment of assembly organi zers, the arbitrary arrest of participants in
demonstrations, the excessive use of force by police to disperse peaceful protests and the
detrimental impact on freedom of assembly of measures introduced to fig ht extremism and
terrorism. Such concerns continue d to arise in many OSCE participating States. More
subtly, it wa s often the legislative framework provid ing for the regulation of freedom of
assembly that led to inadequate protection of the right. Laws in many countries confer red
broad discretionary powers on local officials and law enforcement personnel (leading to
arbitrary, discriminatory and disproportionate restrictions); place d onerous bureaucratic and
sometimes financial burdens on assembly organizer s; unduly prohibit ed assemblies in
particular (often central) locations or at particular times (for example, at elections); or fail ed
to provide effective and timely remedies for those who sought to challenge any restrictions
imposed.
25. Mr. Hamilton rep orted that the Expert Panel had been formed in 2004, and wa s
composed of 10 academics and practitioners, providing regional representation across the
OSCE space , appointed for four -year terms by the Director of ODIHR. One of the primary
roles of the Panel had been to assist participating States in ensuring that their legislation and
practices we re consistent with their OSCE commitments and other international standards.
To th at end, in March 2007, ODIHR published the first edition of the Guidelines o n
Freed om of Peaceful Assembly, developed by the Panel of Experts , in consultation with the
Council of Europe’s European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice
Commission), which subsequently officially endorsed the Guidelines in June 2008. ODIHR
and the Ve nice Commission issued a second, updated edition of the Guidelines in 2010. 2
The Guidelines we re informed by the relevant jurisprudence – particularly that of the
European Court of Human Rights and national constitutional courts. The Guidelines also
incorp orate d examples of good practice where States ha d demonstrated workable solutions
to freedom of assembly dilemmas.
26. The Guidelines set out seven “guiding principles ”: (a) the presumption in favour of
holding assemblies whereby the right should, insofar as wa s possible, be enjoyed without
regulation; (b) the State’s positive duty to protect peaceful assembly; (c) legality, and the
imperative that any restrictions imposed ha d a formal basis in law (which itself should be
compatible with human rights stand ards); (d) proportionality and the need to ensure that
any restrictions we re the least intrusive needed to achieve the legitimate aim being pursued;
(e) non -discrimination, emphasizing that the freedom to assemble should enjoyed equally
by all individuals and groups; (f) good administration, including the accessibility of the
regulatory authority and transparency of the process; and (g) liability/accountability for the
authorities should they fail to uphold their legal obligations.
27. The Guidelines ha d spurred legislative reform initiatives in several countries in
transition , and ha d also had traction in more established democracies. Essentially, they we re
a soft law tool that provides: (a) a reference point for domestic authorities tasked with

2 OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Co mmission , Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly , 2nd ed.
(Warsaw, 2010) . Available from www.osce.org/node/73405?download=false .

A/HRC/19/40
9
regulating freedom of assembly (including drafters of legislation and law enforcement
agencies); (b) an int erpretative aid for the Courts; (c) an advocacy platform for those
seeking to challenge restrictive practices and hold m unicipal authorities to account; and (d)
a basis for a range of related review, monitoring and training activities. The Guidelines ha d
provided useful assistance to legislators and been cited by both lawyers and judges in legal
cases .
28. In relation to the need to have a specific law to regula te freedom of assembly, the
Panel of Experts ha d argued that the greatest utility of such legislation wa s the detail,
clarity and predictability it could bring to the entire regulatory process – defining precisely
which assemblies we re subject to particula r legal obligations, setting out the legitimate
grounds for restriction, and specifying the overall process and time frame. In th at light, the
purpose of any specific legislation must be to facilitate the enjoyment of the right to
assemble and States must avoid the creation of an excessively regulatory, bureaucratic
system that sought to prescribe for all matters and that could thus infringe fundamental
rights.
29. The Panel of Experts ha d emphasized, inter alia : (a) the desirability of having a
notificati on (rather than authorization) procedure; (b) the need to make provision for the
holding of spontaneous assemblies , where compliance with the requisite notification
requirements wa s impracticable; (c) the importance of the authorities providing assembly
organizers with timely notice of the reasons for imposing any restrictions, and the
possibility of an expedited appeal procedure; and (d) the need to resist arguments that ma de
freedom of assembly subservient to the free flow of traffic ; and ( e) the need to build
capacity with non -governmental organizations and human rights defender s working on the
ground to systematically monito r assemblies and their policing .
30 . Mr. Hamilton , in his circulated written statement, proposed the following
recommendations for t he Council ’s consideration : (a) taking steps to establish and promote
a network of international and regional partners (including Africa, the Americas, ASEAN,
and the OSCE), to meet periodically to discuss challenges, share best practices in relation t,
and further promote the protection of freedom of peaceful assembly; ( b) coordinating the
maintenance of a database of freedom of assembly issues which ar ose in the context of
universal periodic review and other treaty monitoring mechanisms; ( c) supporting an d
facilitating regional training sessions for NGOs, civil society actors and human defenders,
as well as local municipal authorities and law enforcement officials, on the human rights
framework governing freedom of assembly and the monitoring of assemblies ; ( d)
supporting a study of the use of accountability mechanisms (and their impact) in situations
where the use of force against demonstrators either constitute d a crime against humanity or
results in death or serious injury; and ( e) given the emphasis pla ced upon negotiated
management of demonstrations (rather than the use of force) , consulting upon and drafting
a handbook on the negotiation of protest (given , in particular , the power differentials often
involved and the importance of not relinquishing cor e human rights protections).
F. Lake Tee Khaw
31 . Lake Tee Khaw, Vice -Chair of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia,
SUHAKAM , shared information on the work of the Commission prior to, during and after
the public rally by the Coalition for Clean and Fa ir Elections (also known by its Malay
acronym BERSIH , meaning “clean”), in Kuala Lumpur, on 9 July 2011 , to call for the
conduct of clean and fair elections in the country.
32. On 28 June 2011, following various statements by the Government and the polic e
stating that the rally would not be permitted ostensibly in order to maintain peace, security
and prevent traffic chaos, SUHAKAM had issued a press statement urging the authorities to

A/HRC/19/40
10
allow the planned peaceful assembly and to remind the organizers to ex ercise their rights in
a peaceful and responsible manner. On 29 June, SUHAKAM had sent a formal letter to the
Inspector -General of Police , requesting him to allow the peaceful assembly to proceed as
planned. On 4 July, representatives from the BERSIH coali tion requested SUHAKAM to
intervene as a mediator between the police and BERSIH, which request SUHAKAM had
accepted , subject to confirmation by the Chair of BERSIH. On 7 July, the Chair of BERSIH
had requested SUHAKAM intervention as a mediator, whereupon the Chair of SUHAKAM
had spoke n to the Inspector -General of Police , offering the Commission’s assistance in
mediat ing between the two parties. The Inspector -General of Police had been , however , of
the view that it was still too premature for the involvemen t of SUHAKAM. On the eve of
the rally, SUHAKAM had again released a press statement urging the parties to hold further
discussions as proposed by the King of Malaysia . It had also informed the public that it
would monitor the public rally, if held.
33. On 9 July, t he BERSIH rally had taken place in several parts of the city centre of
Kuala Lumpur. At 5 .00 p.m. that day, it was reported that 1,667 persons were arrested by
the police. The SUHAKAM monitoring team of two commissioners and 32 staff , moving in
small groups , had observed the rally at various spots. Some of the team members had been
present at detention centres and conducted interview sessions with those detained during
the rally . They had stayed until late that night to witness the release of the detainees. The
observations of the monitoring team had all been recorded in the forms of photographs and
videos , as well as written notes and reports. On 12 July 20 11, SUHAKAM had received the
first memorandum from the political party Pemuda Pas on inter a lia the use of excessive
force by the police during the rally. At the handing over of the memorandum, individual
complaints alleging violations of their human rights had also been received. On 14 July,
SUHAKAM had received a joint memorandum from BERSIH an d the human rights
organi zation Suara Rakyat Malaysia on , inter alia , the use of excessive force by the police
and the firing of tear gas into the compound of a hospital. Again, SUHAKAM had received
individual complaints alleging violations of human rights . On the same day, based on the
memoranda and the number of complaints submitted, SUHAKAM had announced the
decision to hold a public inquiry into the allegations received. On 16 July, a memorandum
had been submitted by Pemuda Pas , urging SUHAKAM to call u pon the police to respect
the people’s freedom of expression and assembly as provided for by the Federal
Constitution. On 22 July 2011 , SUHAKAM had annou nced its panel members and the
terms of reference for the public inquiry. It had also called for public submission of
statements and evidence on alleged violations of human rights prior to and during the rally.
34. Ms . Khaw highlighted that, at the time of the presentation, SUHAKAM ha d held
three public inquiries into the allegations of use of excessive fo rce by the authorities during
public rallies: in 2001 (Kesas Highway), 2006 ( Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre ) and
2008 (Bandar Mahkota Cheras). A number of the significant recommendations derived
from the Commission’s public inquiries in relation to peacefu l assembly could be
summarized as: (a) the police should be notified in writing of the proposed assembly or
procession; (b) b oth the police and civil society should cooperate to work out details with
regard to a suitable time frame for the notification and the contents of the notice; ( c) i n
order to ensure minimal disruption of traffic, inconvenience to the general public, damage
to property and prevention of injury to persons, a notification should be followed by
meetings between the organizers of the asse mbly and the relevant police officers so as to
confirm the practical arrangements for the assembly or procession; (d) a ny person whose
rights could be affected by the assembly or any arrangement relating to the assembly should
be allowed to make an urgent application to the court for intervention; and ( e) t he
organizers should also make arrangements with regard to crowd control.

A/HRC/19/40
11
G. Bahey el -din Hassan
35. Bahey el -din Hassan, General Director, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies,
stated that his pres entation would be dedicated to the millions of citizens within the Arab
region and beyond who ha d sacrificed and continue d to sacrifice their lives and their safety
in peaceful protests and acts of civil disobedience in order to demand a dignified life. Mr .
Hassan saluted the courage and consistency that the High Commissioner ha d demonstrated
in the promotion and protection of human rights in relation to the pro -democracy protests
that have been occurring throughout the Arab world over the previous 10 month s, and were
continuing .
36. Mr. Hassan argued that the current peaceful protests that ha d swept through the Arab
region ha d done more to defeat Al -Qa ida and their philosophy of political violence, than the
assassination of Osama Bin Lad en or the vast amou nt of money and resources spent on
counter -terrorism activities between various Governments.
37. Mr. Hassan further stated that , since December 2010, an absence of serious,
constructive and comprehensive dialogue with groups organizing protests and the
consistent refusal to respond to their legitimate political, economic and social demands ha d
led to the current political and human rights crises’ unfolding throughout the Arab region.
He declared that a lmost all Arab Governments ha d resorted to violence, in cluding the use of
live ammunition, extrajudicial killings, mass arrests, torture and ill -treatment and the use of
forced disappearances in response to such protests. Laws ha d been passed that attempt ed to
give authorities legal cover to use methods of int imidation and repression, including the use
of states of emergency in illegitimate ways. Government media sources, often the only
regular news source available due to severe restrictions on the freedom of the media, ha d
been used to incite violence, hatred and defame the character and aims of reformists, protest
movements and civil society actors.
38. Mr. Hassan noted that t he primary responsibility for ensuring the respect for human
rights in the context of p rotests f ell squarely on the G overnment of the country
experiencing such protests. However, within the international realm, the unreliability of
politics to provide swift and consistent protection should be guard ed against. To th at end ,
the international community should begin to put in place a holist ic framework to guide
Governments and the international actors on how to provide human rights protection and
promotion in responding to protests.
39 . Mr. Hassan advocate d the creation by th e Council, to be adopted by the General
Assembly, of a declaration on the guidelines and principles for the promotion and
protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests. He referred to the following
list of examples of guidelines and principles that ha d arisen from lessons learned within the
Arab region , as provided in his circulated written statement : (a) the right to life and the
right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, must
be guaranteed by States to all individuals under all circumstances; ( b) Government lea ders
and the head of State of a country experiencing large -scale protests should, without undue
delay, clearly and publicly express the Government’s intention to ensure the fundamental
rights of those protest ing we re respected and that any G overnment secur ity forces that
unduly commit ted acts of violence or cause harm to peaceful protesters could be held
criminally responsible; ( c) as provided by international law, the use of foreign nationals and
mercenaries to respond to public demonstrations and protests , as well as the use of non –
regulatory forces , should be prohibited; ( d) the use of military forces and irregular militia to
respond to peaceful public demonstrations should be prohibited; ( e) anti -riot police and
police responding to protests should not b e representative of a particular ethnic, racial,
religious or political group within a country; ( f) protests, sit -ins, demonstrations of a
peaceful nature, and other forms of social mobilization associated with peaceful political

A/HRC/19/40
12
activities, should be decr iminalized; ( g) a sub -section of security forces within a country
should be trained specifically on how to respond to protests and perform crowd
management in a peaceful manner that wa s in conformity with international human rights
standards; ( h) any deten tion of those involved in activities associated with peaceful protests
and other forms of public demonstration should only be performed by civil security forces
for the purposes of personal and public safety and only for a duration required in order to
gua rantee such safety, and no more than 24 hours. In all instances in which those
participating in protests or demonstrations we re detained for criminal offen ces, they should
be granted access to a qualified lawyer and full due process guarantees before a
rep resentative of the judiciary of the civil authority; ( i) the terms public safety, public order
and public health should be clearly and unambiguously defined within the laws of a country
and should be in accordance with international standards of human righ ts; ( j) in instances
where riot gear and military hardware we re used by Government security forces to
systematically commit human rights violations against individuals participating in public
demonstrations and protests, other States and private companies that provide d such
equipment should immediately cease providing th at equipment to a violating Government,
and any contractual obligations to th at effect should be suspended; ( k) bilateral and
multilateral aid and assistance between States should be specifi cally conditional on the full
respect for freedom of assembly and association, and strong safeguards should be put in
place to ensure such aid wa s in no way used by recipient Governments to supplement their
ability to carry out large -scale repression of th ese rights, especially during times of large –
scale peaceful protests; ( l) the widespread blocking of basic systems of communication and
commerce, including the Internet, mobile and landline phone services, satellite channels
and other media should be prohi bited. The criminal liability of companies that we re
involved in such practices should be made clear in national penal systems; and ( m) all
instances of incitement to violence, hate, xenophobia and discrimination within the media
should be combated. Instan ces of incitement to violence should be prohibited on State -run
media sources.
III. Summary of the discussion
40 . Most delegation s thanked OHCHR , Switzerland and the co-sponsor s3 of decision
17/120 for convening this panel discussion . The delegations fur ther thanked the President
of Maldives, the Deputy High Commissioner and the panellists for their presentations .
Several delegations stressed the timeliness of the panel discussion, mentioning the recent
and unfolding events in the Arab region , but also in the rest of the world.
A. Issues raised by stakeholders
41 . Sever al delegations emphasized the cross -cutting dimension of the issue of peaceful
protests , which wa s intricately connected to the exercise of the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly, freed om of expression, freedom of association, freedom of
thought/conscience and religion, and the right to par ticipate in the affairs of the S tate.
Peaceful protests we re further linked to the promotion of good governance and the rule of

3 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Maldives, Montenegro, Netherlands,
Norway, Palestine, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain,
Sweden, Timor -Leste, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United
States of America.

A/HRC/19/40
13
law , and the improveme nt of democracy . Fundamentally, human beings aspire d to the
same, i.e. a better life , through the recognition of their inherent dignity and their equal and
inalienable rights, and better conditions for their social and material development.
42. It was furt her stressed that the issue of peaceful protests wa s not confined to major
political demonstrations that express ed fundamental discontent with the G overnment in
power. At the local level, the peaceful protests of the poorest who we re victims of land
evicti ons and large development projects which harm ed their health or who deno unce d
officials’ corruption d id not attract the same attention.
43. Many delegations also mentioned that peaceful protests we re an opportunity for
Governments to enter into a n open and constructive national dialogue with a view to
preserv ing democracy, peace and security, highlighting the responsibility of Member States
to earnestly listen to and address people s’ legitimate concerns and aspirations. In that
regard, the importance of im proving dialogue was widely acknowledged. Peaceful protests
we re an opportunity to tackle root causes such as inequalities, discrimination, corruption
and obstacles to effective participation in political debate . In th at context, the importance of
promotin g a cul ture of non -violence and peace was mentioned.
44. One delegation , however, noted that i t should not be taken for granted that a protest
always reflect ed the opinion of society as a whole (vox populi) as protestors we re
sometimes guided by personal political goals .
45. The majority of delegations stressed the p rimary responsibility of States to promote
and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals , including women and
the youth, taking part in peaceful assemblies. Guaranteeing human rights in the context of
peaceful protests wa s at the essence of democratic participation and violence against
peaceful protestors wa s an attempt against democracy which could threaten in ternational
peace and security.
46. Some delegations stated that Mem ber States must strike a balance between the
promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests and the
necessity to ma intain public order and safety. In th at context, delegations recalled that
Member States had duties to take nec essary measures to maintain public security, public
order and social stability, in accordance with domestic law and international law obligations
by which they we re bound. To th at end, the right s to freedom of expression and of peaceful
assembly could be subjected to certain restrictions imposed in conformity with the law and
which we re necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security or public
safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rig hts
and freedoms of others. Furthermore , exercising human rights and fundamental freedoms
could not be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in
any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of human rights . For some
delegations, one of the main challenges l ay in the capacity of demonstrators and law
enforcement officials to refrain from committing any violent act detrimental to the effective
enjoyment of human rights. In th at connection, the infiltration in to peaceful protests of
subversive elements was mentioned as requiring greater vigilance. To th at end, the need for
Member States and international organizations to be precise when collecting information on
peaceful protests was pointed out.
47. Other dele gations , while acknowledging the existence of restrictions to the right to
freedom of peaceful assembly , stressed that they must pass the proportionality test and be
reduced to a strict minimum , and recalled the existence of non -derogable rights in th at
context : the right to life and the right to be free from torture and other forms of cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The loss of life in the context of peaceful
protest wa s unjustifiable, and the State’s duty to guarantee the right to life in th at context
wa s greater than its duty to maintain order. Fundamentally, the use of discretionary powers

A/HRC/19/40
14
by security forces in an unaccountable and discriminatory way could never be justifiable.
Nor could State sovereignty be a justification for viola ting human rights. Stifling peaceful
protests with brutal force in the alleged interest of restoring peace, order and security could
not be a successful solution in the long term.
48. Likewise, it was recalled that peaceful demonstrators had the responsib ility to
guarantee that the legitimate expression of their opinion would not jeopardize the safety of
others and of their own. To th at end, i t was suggested that channels of communication
between th e authorities and civic leaders should be developed . The p ositive obligation of
States to facilitate peaceful protest was also raised, notably the importance of maintaining
proper structures to ensure that legitimate protest ers could make themselves heard.
Furthermore, a call was made that domestic legislation that unduly and significantly
restrict ed the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly must be immediately
repealed. When legislation wa s in accordance with international law instruments, it should
be properly implemented.
49. Some d elegations ra ised the issue of accountability for human rights violations
committed in the context of peaceful protests and the need to conduct thorough and
independent investigations to combat impunity and dissuade the recurrence of such acts.
The issue of access to a nd the effectiveness of public complaints mechanism s for any
violent acts was raised and illustrated by some State s’ experience.
50 . Some delegations stressed the need to enhance the capacity of law enforcement
authorities , which could lead to preventing human rights violations by minimizing the use
of force. The necessity for Member States to incorporate in to their national legislation soft
law provisions on policing peaceful protests for law enforcement officials was raised. The
need to provide human rig hts training to law enforcement authorities in charge of handling
peaceful protests, which should be consistent with the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, was also raised. To th at end, support from the international
community in preparin g a State to appropriately handle a situation of peaceful protests was
mentioned and relevant Human Rights Council mechanisms, treaty bodies, and relevant
United Nations bodies and agencies were urged to provide advice and technical assistance
upon request of States on how to enhance national capacity in dealing with specific
situations of protests.
51 . A number of r eferences were made to the Special Rapporteur o n extrajudicial ,
summary or arbitrary executions , who , in his report on protecting the right to life in the
context of policing assemblies (A/HRC/17/28), notably recommend ed that an international
process be undertaken to work towards a more comprehensive codification of assembly
law, including the use of force during demonstrations.
52. Some delegati ons also highlighted the important role played by social media in the
context of peaceful protests. It was stated that all basic system s of communications,
including the Internet, mobile phones, satellite channels and others should be recognized as
basic v ehicle s through which freedom of assembly and association took place . The free
flow of information or the effective use of social media to organi ze should not be stopped,
notably through resorting to blanket restrictions on speech or on the use of the Inte rnet or
social media such as Facebook, Twitter or Blackberry. In that connection , the report of the
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression presented to the Council’s seventeen th session on key t rends and challenges to
the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kind
through the Internet (A/HRC/17/27) was found highly pertinent during the panel
discussion. However, some delegations warned against the misus e of social media, which in
recent social turmoil could become problematic. They believed that the issue of address ing
the negative impact of social media while making the best use of it wa s a common problem
faced and considered by all countries.

A/HRC/19/40
15
53. The t argeting of journalists and bloggers in the context of peaceful protests; the role
of objective observers documenting violations, who contribute d to providing de facto
protection to peaceful protestors; and the invaluable contribution to the promotion and
protection made by national human rights institutions in the context of peaceful protests
were also mentioned.
B. Responses of panellists and concluding remarks by the President of the
Human Rights Council
54. The panellists were provided an opportunity t o respond to a first set of questions
raised by Member States and non -governmental organizations.
55. Mr. Kiai , responding to a question regarding lessons learn ed, said the issue of the
equality of responses by States when dealing with peaceful protests an d assemblies was of
critical importance. Protests about issues on which State authorities agree we re always
allowed with out problem. It wa s only when protests we re about issues with which
authorities disagree d that problems ar ose. People must be given the right to gather and
express themselves, whether States like d or dislike d what they were saying , and the space
to organize and carry out their protests peacefully. Mr. Kiai, responding to a question on
peaceful protests becoming non -peaceful, stressed that the fundamental duty lay with the
State to provide security and make sure that a protest d id not turn violent. Such a paramount
duty must , however, not be turned around towards the protestors. Violent elements should
be arrested and dealt with in accordanc e with criminal law.
56. Mr. Canton, responding to a question on activities that the Council could conduct on
the present issue, said that the Inter -American Commission had contributed to establishing
clear guidelines and tools for G overnments to comply wi th their commitments and
obligations, both positive and negative, in the context of protests. Th ose included
legislation, policing strategies and tools. Similarly, the Inter -American Commission had
granted protective measures in certain cases , calling on Member States to take specific
action to protect the demonstrators. It had also sent request s for information to Member
States . Th ose guidelines were very useful for the work of national and international civil
society, particularly whe n engaging with Gover nments on human rights issues.
57. Mr. Hamilton said that the discussion had underscored the importance of
international and regional cooperation to promote international standards, examples and
good practices. In relation to the distinction between pe acef ul and non -peaceful assemblies ,
individuals d id not forfeit their right to freedom of peaceful assembly simply because others
in the same demonstration might choose to engage in violent activities. It bec ame the role
of the law enforcement forces to distin guish between those behaving peacefully and those
engaging in violence. The legal regulation of freedom of peaceful assembly must reflect the
principles of tolerance and pluralism. This implie d in due course that where peaceful
assemblies took place , they should be facilitated even when they questioned the authorities.
Mr. Hamilton reiterated the suggestion of carry ing out a study on the use of accountability
mechanisms and their impact on situation s where the use of force against demonstrators
constitute d a crime against humanity, or result to death or serious injuries . He emphasized
the importance of d ialogue and maintaining channels of communication between protestors
and the authorities. Dialogue wa s good if its purpose wa s to facilitate to the greatest
possible degree the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly. However, the right to
freedom of peaceful assembly should never be made conditional on the suc cessful outcome
of negotiation processes, particularly whe re vulnerable groups we re concerned. It mi ght be
useful to draft guidance concerning the negotiation of the practical exercise of freedom of
assembly .

A/HRC/19/40
16
58. Ms. Khaw , noted the obligation of Member States to maintain public security and
order , but was concerned by inconsistent State practices in n ot allowing peaceful protests.
Often there was a lack of transparency in issuing permits (where required ) for peaceful
assembly. It wa s essential that authorit ies act ed in good faith, in a timely, non -selective and
reasonable manner whe n there wa s request to peacefully assemble. There wa s also a need
for the authorities to use reasonable, non -violent and proportionate methods in dealing with
violence if it occur red duri ng peaceful assemblies. In th at respect, t here should be
guidelines on the exercise of me asures to contain any violence which might occur. She
added that t here wa s a role for national human rights institutions to mediate , monitor and
deal with any violations during and in the aftermath of demonstrations. Lastly , there should
be guidelines on h ow recommendations by national human rights institutions should be
acted upon by the relevant authorities.
59. Mr. Hassan, stated that the discussion had confirmed the need for the Human Rights
Council to establish an overall framework that would regulate the work of the United
Nations human rights system in dealing with the issue of peaceful protests. He stressed that,
although all Arab countries which had undergone recent uprisings had ratified the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bru tal and wide spread repression had
take n place; and that t he relevant national human rights laws in the Arab region for dealing
with public protests were not derived from human rights law. The Council should have a
single standard to deal with human rights in the context of peaceful protests to avoid
politicization or double standards. Concerning the issue of how to promote national
dialogue between the State and protestors, in some countries non -governmental
organizations and political parties existed only on paper and therefore no dialogue could
take place, notably in the six countries where the uprisings had taken place.
60 . The President of the Human Rights Council concluded by stating that the discussion
had been very fruitful , of extreme interest and g reatly topical.