GE.12 -13586
Human Rights Council
Twen tieth session
Agenda item 3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
incl uding the right to development
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association ,
Maina Kiai
Summary
The Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association presents its f irst thematic report to the Human Rights Council, pursuant to
Council resolution 15/21.
Following an introduction (chap . I), the Special Rapporteur provides in chapter II an
overview of his activities during the first year of his mandate.
In chapter II I, the Special Rapporteur highlights best practices that promote and
protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. The right of peaceful
assembly covers not only the right to hold and to participate in a peaceful assembly but also
the right to be protected from undue interference . It further protects those monitoring
peaceful assemblies. The right to freedom of association ranges from the creation to the
termination of an association, and includes the rights to form and to join an a ssociation, to
operate freely and to be protected from undue interference, to access funding and resources
and to take part in the conduct of public affairs. This chapter ends with an emphasis on the
right to an effective remedy and accountability for huma n rights violations and abuses.
In chapter IV, the Special Rapporteur outlines his conclusions and recommendations
to relevant stakeholders.

United Nations A /HRC/20 /27

General Assembly Distr.: General
21 May 2012

Original: English

A/HRC/20/27
2
Contents
Paragraphs Page
I. Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 1–6 3
II. Activities ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 7–11 4
A. Communications ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 7 4
B. Country visit s ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 8 4
C. Participation in various events ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 9–11 4
III. Best practices related to the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 12 –81 5
A. Common principles ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 12 –23 5
B. Best practices related to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly …………… 24–50 7
C. Be st practices related to the right to freedom of association ……………………… 51–76 13
D. The right to an effective remedy and accountability for human rights
violations and abuses ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 77–81 19
IV. Conclusions and recommendations ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 82 –100 19
A. General recommendations ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 84 –87 20
B. Specific recommendations ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 88 –100 21

A/HRC/20/27
3
I. Introduction
1. This report is submitted to the Human Rights Council by the Special Rapporteur on
the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association pursuant to Human Rights
Council resolution 15/21. This is the first thematic report of the Special Rapporteur, who
took up his functions on 1 May 2011. It introduces the activities of the Special Rapporteur
over the period 1 May 2011 to 30 April 2012, and highlights, what he considers “best
practices, in cluding national practices and experiences, that promote and protect the rights
to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association” (para. 5 (b) of the resolution) .
2. “Best practice ” not only applies to what is required by international human rights
law, bu t also includes principles that go beyond these legally binding obligations
(A/HRC/16/51 , para. 10) . It refers to both legal and institutional frameworks and must be
based on an existing or emerging practice, coming from State institutions ,
intergovernment al organizations , international treaty bodies , international, regional or
domestic courts (jurisprudence) or scholars.
3. In order to identify such best practices, the Special Rapporteur sent a questionnaire
to Member States , national human rights institutio ns, regional human rights mechanisms,
non -governmental organizations (NGOs) and other stakeholders. A total of 87 replies were
received (see A/HRC/20/27/Add. 1). The Special Rapporteur is grateful to those who
respon ded to his questionnaire. For the sake of ensuring a balanced approach, he
encourages any stakeholder to engage with him and to comment on any issues mentioned in
the present report so as to ensure that the best practices identified rightly reflect the
situation on the ground. As prescribed by Co uncil resolution 15/21, the Special Rapporteur
also used other “elements of work available within the Council ” to prepare this report. He
further referred to urgent appeals and allegation letters sent by special procedure mandate
holders.
4. The Special Rapp orteur underlines that , while the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association are clearly interrelated, interdependent and mutually
reinforcing, they are also two separate rights. They are indeed in most cases governed by
two different types of legislation and, as shown in the present report, they face different
challenges. This implies that each should be treated separately. Th e present report therefore
covers successively best practices related to the right of peaceful assembly and to the ri ght
to freedom of association.
5. Considering the very large scope of the rights at stake, this report does not pretend,
nor intend to be exhaustive, but rather aims at presenting a first overview of legal and
institutional frameworks that should be adopted a nd implemented to comply with the spirit
and the letter of human rights in the context of the rights of freedom of peaceful assembly
and of association.
6. Although the present report is related to best practices, the Special Rapporteur
believes it is importa nt to bear in mind that , in certain contexts, the rights of peaceful
assembly and to freedom of association are totally or partially denied, as seen in many
countries at the time of drafting the report.

A/HRC/20/27
4
II. Activities
A. Communications
7. A total of 140 co mmunications were sent by the Special Rapporteur from 1 May
2011 to 30 April 2012. Observations on countries to which communications were addressed
throughout the year are enclosed in an addendum of the present report
(A/HRC/20/27/Add. 4).
B. Country visit s
8. Since 1 May 2011, the Special Rapporteur sent 41 country visit requests. The
Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Georgia for its collaboration during his first
country mission from 6 to 13 February 2012 (see A/HRC/20/27/Add.2 for final conclusio ns
and recommendations ). He further thanks Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Honduras, the
Kyrgyz stan , Maldives, Tunisia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland for extending an invitation. However, he deeply regrets that the Government of the
Sy rian Arab Republic did not respond to his letter dated 1 December 2011, in which he
proposed dates for a mission, after the Government extended an invitation for a mission to
take place “during the first months of [2012]”.
C. Participation in various eve nts
9. The Special Rapporteur took part in two regional consultations that helped him
gather relevant inputs for the elaboration of the present report, organized by the Human
Rights House Foundation and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Right s
(ODIHR), and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies and the International Service
for Human Rights, respectively. From 2 to 4 February 2012, in Tbilisi, he had the
opportunity to meet with representatives from civil society from, inter alia, Armeni a,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Hungary, Norway, Poland,
the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey and the
United Kingdom; as well as with activists from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkme nistan
in cooperation with the Open Society Institute. On 13 and 14 April 2012, in Cairo, he
participated in a regional consultation, which brought together human rights defenders from
the Middle East and North Africa region, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights defenders and the African Commission on Human and Peoples‟ Rights Special
Rapporteur on human rights defenders.
10. In terms of conferences, on 12 July 2011, the Special Rapporteur met with the
Secretary General of the Organization of American States in Washington , D.C . From 14 to
16 September 2011, he participated in the sixth Dublin Platform for Human Rights
Defenders, organized by Front Line , The International Foundation for the Protection of
Human Rights Defenders . From 21 to 23 November 2011, he attended the conference
„Protecting Democracy – Reclaiming Civil S ociety Space in Africa ”, organized by the
Centre for Citizens‟ Participation in the African Union, which took place in Johannesburg,
South Africa. On 30 November 2011, he participated in the Fourth High Level Forum on
Aid Effectiveness, held in Pusan, Repu blic of Korea. On 17 and 18 January 2012, in Addis
Ababa, he participated in a consultation between special procedures mandate holders of the
United Nations and the African Commission on Human and Peoples‟ Rights . From 26 to 28
January 2012, he participate d in the 2012 Wilton Park conference, organized by the
Governments of Norway and Switzerland and entitled “Peaceful protest: a cornerstone of
democracy. How to address the challenges?” On 14 and 15 March 2012, he attended the

A/HRC/20/27
5
European Union Presidency Conf erence entitled “Civil Society Organisations, Human
Rights and Development” in Copenhagen, organized by Concord D anmark and , on 16
March 2012, he attended the Fiftieth Anniversary Conference of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Denmark in Copenhagen.
11. On 1 3 September 2011, pursuant to Council decision 17/120, the Special Rapporteur
participated in a panel discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights in the
context of peaceful protest , organized during the eighteenth session of the Council. The
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights prepared a summary
report of the discussion (A/HRC/19/40 ).
III. Best practices related to the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association
A. Common principles
1. Legal frame work
12. The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association serve as a vehicle for
the exercise of many other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. The rights
are essential components of democracy as they empower men and women to “express their
political opinions, engage in literary and artistic pursuits and other cultural, economic and
social activities, engage in religious observances or other beliefs, form and join trade unions
and cooperatives, and elect leaders to represent the ir interests and hold them accountable”
(Council resolution 15/21, preamble) . Such interdependence and interrelatedness with other
rights make them a valuable indicator of a State‟s respect for the enjoyment of many other
human rights.
13. Resolution 15/21 reaffirms that “everyone has the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association” (emphasis added) . This provision must be read jointly with
article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , which stipulates that
“each State Pa rty undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory
and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, without distinction of
any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinio n, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status” (emphasis added) ., and article 26 the reof, which
guarantees to all individuals equal and effective protection against discrimination on
grounds identified in article 2 . This applies inter alia t o minors, indigenous peoples, persons
with disabilities, persons belonging to minority groups or other groups at risk, including
those victims of discrimination because of their sexual orientation and gender identity (see
Council resolution 17/19) , non -nat ionals including stateless persons, refugees 1 or migrants,
as well as associations, including unregistered groups. The rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association are key human rights in international human rights law, which
are enshrined in article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
14. The right to freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed in article 21 of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the right to freedom of association in article 22.
They are also reflected in article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights and in other specific international 2 and regional human rights treaties or

1 Article 15 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
2 Article 7 (c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women;
International Labour Organization (ILO) Convent ion No. 87 (1948) concerning Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organise .

A/HRC/20/27
6
instruments ,3 including the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals,
Groups and Or gans of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ( art. 5 ).
15. According to article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
the right of peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of ass ociation are not absolute
rights. Resolution 15/21 (OP 4) makes clear that they “can be subject to certain restrictions,
which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security or public safety, pub lic order ( ordre public ), the protection of public
health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others” .
16. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that only “certain” restrictions may be applied,
which clearly means that freedom is to be consi dered the rule and its restriction the
exception. He refers to general comment No. 27 (1999) of the Human Rights Committee on
freedom of movement : “in adopting laws providing for restrictions … States should always
be guided by the principle that the restr ictions must not impair the essence of the right …
the relation between right and restriction, between norm and exception, must not be
reversed” . As a result, when States would like to restrict these rights, all the above
conditions must be met. Any rest rictions must therefore be motivated by one of the above
limited interests, have a legal basis (be “prescribed by law”, which implies that the law
must be accessible and its provisions must be formulated with sufficient precision) and be
“necessary in a de mocratic society”.
17. As outlined by the Organi zation for Security and Co -operation in Europe (OSCE),
“the word „necessity‟ does not mean „absolutely necessary‟ or „indispensable‟, but neither
does it have the flexibility of terms such as „useful‟ or „conven ient‟: instead, the term
means that there must be a „pressing social need‟ for the interference” .4 When such a
pressing social need arises, States have then to ensure that any restrictive measures fall
within the limit of what is acceptable in a “democrati c society”. In that regard, longstanding
jurisprudence asserts that democratic societies exist only where “pluralism, tolerance and
broadmindedness” 5 are in place. Hence, States cannot undermine the very existence of these
attributes when restricting these rights. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur refers to
general comment No . 31 (2004) of the Human Rights Committee on the nature of the
general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which provides that
“where such restrictions are mad e, States must demonstrate their necessity and only take
such measures as are proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate aims in order to ensure
continuous and effective protection of Covenant rights” (para. 6).
18. In addition, only propaganda for war or a dvocacy for national, racial or religious
hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (art . 20 of the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ) or acts aimed at the destruction of the rights and
freedoms enshrined in internati onal human rights law (art . 5) should be deemed unlawful.
19. The Special Rapporteur further particularly emphasi zes that the right to life and the
right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should
be guaranteed by St ates to all individuals under all circumstances and at all times, including
in the context of the exercise of the rights to freedom of association and of peaceful
assembly, as prescribed by article 4 of the Covenant . The Special Rapporteur recalls that,

3 It is worth noting that the word “peaceful ” is absent from article 11 of the African Charter on Human
and People s‟ Rights .
4 OSCE/ Office for Democratic Institu tions and Human Rights ( ODIHR ), Key Guiding Principles of
Freedom of Association with an Emphasis on Non -Governmental Organizations , para. 5 .
5 European Court of Human Rights , Handyside v. the United Kingdom , application No. 5493/72, 7
December 1976, par a. 49 .

A/HRC/20/27
7
according to the Human Rights Committee, during a state of emergency, the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association shall not be derogated since “the
possibility of restricting certain Covenant rights under the terms of, for instance … freedo m
of assembly is generally sufficient during such situations and no derogation from the
provision s in question would be justified by the exigencies of the situation”. 6
2. Environment in which these rights are exercised
20. The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are constitutionally
guaranteed in most countries. In many States, specific domestic laws further govern the
exercise of these rights. However, in many instances, domestic legislation in place listed
grounds additional to those already prescribed by international human rights law or
ambiguous . T he Special Rapporteur warns against arbitrary interpretations of such grounds
for restriction. He further cautions against an environment in which the enjoyment of these
rights is seriousl y impede d.
21. The legitimate combat against terrorism, and other security considerations, has been
used as a justification for the adoption of a state of emergency or other stricter rules to void
the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. In many instances,
emergency regulations have been used to clampdown on freedoms of peaceful assembly, of
association and of expression. On different occasions, the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering
terrorism has stressed in a report to the General Assembly that “States should not need to
resort to derogation measures in the area of freedom of assembly and association. Instead,
limitation measures, as provided for in ICCPR, are suffi cient in an effective fight against
terrorism” (A/61/267, para. 53).
22. Country -specific contexts sometimes extinguish the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association. In situations of armed conflict, individuals who desire to
assemble and assoc iate freely, even to address emergency needs or to call for the end of
violence, may meet drastic restrictions that may amount to a strict denial of their rights.
23. The context of elections may also heavily impact on the rights to freedom of
peaceful assemb ly and of association. This is particularly the case when assemblies are
systematically prohibited or when individuals active in associations promoting transparent
and fair electoral processes and defending democratic principles are subject to harassment
and intimidation for their civic activism.
B. Best practices related to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly 7
1. Definition of a peaceful assembly
24. An “assembly” is an intentional and temporary gathering in a private or public space
for a specific p urpose. It therefore includes demonstrations, inside meetings, strikes ,8
processions, rallies or even sits -in. Assemblies play a vibrant role in mobilizing the
population and formulating grievances and aspirations, facilitating the celebration of events
and, importantly, influencing States‟ public policy.

6 General comment No. 29 (2001) on derogations from provisions of the Covenant during a state of
emergency , para. 5.
7 The Special Rapporteur extensively refers to the OSCE /ODIHR Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful
Assembly (2007, Warsaw, second ed .), which he considers the most advanced set of good practices
available at the time of drafting.
8 Due to word limit, the report will not cover strikes.

A/HRC/20/27
8
25. The Special Rapporteur agrees that international human rights law only protects
assemblies that are peaceful, i.e. those that are not violent , and where participants have
peaceful intentions , which should be presumed . 9 According to the European Court of
Human Rights, “an individual does not cease to enjoy the right to peaceful assembly as a
result of sporadic violence or other punishable acts committed by others in the course of the
demonstration, if the individual in question remains peaceful in his or her own intentions or
behaviour”. 10
2. The right to hold and to participate in a peaceful assembly
26. Fundamentally, the Special Rapporteur considers as a best practice the presumption
in favour of holding peaceful assemblies, as stressed by the OSCE /ODIHR Panel of Experts
on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly. Such a presumption should be “clearly and explicitly
established in the law”, 11 enshrined either in constitutions or in laws governing peaceful
assemblies (e .g. as in Armenia and Romania).
27. The Special Rapporteur stresses that the enjoyment of the right to hold and
participate in peacef ul assemblies entails the fulfi lment by the State of its positive
obligation to facilitate the exercise of this right. In this regard, he highlights the Law on
Assembly in Armenia, which states that the police shall be obliged to facilitate peaceful
assemblies (art. 32, para. 2) . He further notes with interest the statement of the Her
Majesty‟s Inspectorate of Constabulary of the United Kingdom , an independent assessment
institution, which stated that “the police as a service has recognized and adopted the correct
starting point for policing protest as the presumption in favour of facilitating peaceful
protest”. 12
28. The Special Rappo rteur believes that the exercise of fundamental freedoms should
not be subject to previous authorization by the authorities (as explicitly expressed in the
Spanish Constitution), but at the most to a prior notification procedure, whose rationale is
to allo w State authorities to facilitate the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and to take measures to protect public safety and order and the rights and
freedoms of others. 13 Such a notification should be subject to a proportionality assessmen t,
not unduly bureaucratic 14 and be required a maximum of, for example, 48 hours prior to the
day the assembly is planned to take place. A notification procedure is in force in several
countries, including Armenia, Austria, Canada, Cote d‟Ivoire, Finland, I ndonesia, Morocco,
the Occupied Palestinian Territor y, Portugal, Senegal, Serbia, and the United Republic of
Tanzania. Prior notification should ideally be required only for large meetings or meetings
which may disrupt road traffic. 15 In the Republic of Mol dova, any assembly of fewer than
50 participants may take place without prior notification and the change from an
authorization to a notification procedure fostered an increase in the number of individuals
exercising their right to freedom of peaceful asse mbly. In this context, the Special
Rapporteur regrets that the law on demonstrations recently adopted by referendum in the
canton of Geneva , Switzerland , provides for a fine of up to 100,000 Swiss francs for

9 Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly , p. 3 3.
10 European Court of Human Rights, Ziliberber g v. Moldova , application No. 61821/00 (2004).
11 Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly , p. 1 3.
12 See submission by the United Kingdom in addendum 1 to the present report .
13 Guideline s on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly , p .63. Inter -American Commiss ion on Human Rights ,
report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124 para. 57.
14 See submission by the OSCE -ODIHR Panel of Experts in addendum 1 to the present report.
15 Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly , p. 63.

A/HRC/20/27
9
anyone who, inter alia, does not request an auth orization to demonstrate or does not respect
the content of the authorization. 16
29. Should the organizers fail to notify the authorities, the assembly should not be
dissolved automatically (e.g. as in Austria) and the organizers should not be subject to
crimin al sanctions, or administrative sanctions resulting in fines or imprisonment . This is
all the more relevant in the case of spontaneous assemblies where the organizers are unable
to comply with the requisite notification requirements, or where there is no e xisting or
identifiable organizer. In this context, the Special Rapporteur holds as best practice
legislation allowing the holding of spontaneous assemblies, which should be exempted
from prior notification. This is the case for example, in Armenia, Estoni a, Germany, the
Republic of Moldova and Slovenia. In this connection, the European Court of Human
Rights has emphasized that “in special circumstances when an immediate response, in the
form of a demonstration, to a political event might be justified, a de cision to disband the
ensuing, peaceful assembly solely because of the absence of the requisite prior notice,
without any illegal conduct by the participants, amounts to a disproportionate restriction on
freedom of peaceful assembly”. 17
30. In the case of simu ltaneous assemblies at the same place and time, the Special
Rapporteur considers it good practice to allow, protect and facilitate all events, whenever
possible. In the case of counter -demonstrations, which aim at expressing discontent with
the message of other assemblies, such demonstrations should take place, but should not
dissuade participants of the other assemblies from exercising their right to freedom of
peaceful assembly. In this respect, the role of law enforcement authorities in protecting and
facilitating the events is crucial.
31. With regard to the responsibilities of organizers, the Special Rapporteur is of the
opinion that “organizers should not incur any financial charges for the provision of public
services during an assembly (such as policing, medical services and other health and safety
measures)”. 18 He is informed that , in Austria, there are no fees to be paid for the protection
of assemblies. 19 Most importantly, “assembly organizers and participants should not be
considered responsible (or hel d liable) for the unlawful conduct of others… [and, together
with] assembly stewards, should not be made responsible for the maintenance of public
order”. 20 The Special Rapporteur considers as a good practice , when necessary, the use of
stewards appointed b y the organizers of an assembly , i.e. persons who provide assistance to
them by, inter alia, informing and orienting the public during the event. Stewards should be
clearly identifiable and properly trained.
32. The Special Rapporteur notes the increased use of the Internet, in particular social
media, and other information and communication technology, as basic tools which enable
individuals to organize peaceful assemblies. However, some States have clamped down on
these tools to deter or prevent citizens fr om exercising their right. In this connection, the
Special Rapporteur refers to a recent report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in which he recommended,
inter alia, that “all Stat es [should] ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times,
including during times of political unrest ” (A/HRC/17/27, para. 79) and “any determination

16 As of May 2012, the law is the subject of an appeal before the Swiss Federal Tribunal.
17 European Court of Human Rights, Bukta and Others v. Hungary , application No. 25691/04 (2007).
“Special circumstances” refer to cases when “an immediate respo nse to a current event is warranted
in the form of a demonstration”.
18 See submission by the OSCE /ODIHR Panel of Experts to the addendum to the present report.
19 See the submission of the Austrian national human rights institution .
20 See submission by the OSCE /ODIHR Panel of Experts.

A/HRC/20/27
10
on what [website] content should be blocked must be undertaken by a competent judicial
authority or a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted
influences” (para. 70).
3. The right to be protected from undue interference
(a) Positive obligation
33. The Special Rapporteur stresses that States have a positive obligation to actively
protect peaceful assemblies. Such obligation includes the protection of participants of
peaceful assemblies from individuals or groups of individuals, including agents
provocateurs and counter -demonstrators, who aim at disrupting or dispersing such
assemblies. Such individuals include those belonging to the State apparatus or working on
its behalf. The organizers and stewards of assemblies should not assume this obligation.
The Special Rapporteur believes that such responsibility should always b e explicitly stated
in domestic legislation, as it is in, inter alia, the Republic of Moldova, Serbia and Slovenia.
In Armenia, organizers may request police officials to remove provocateurs from the
assembly venue (even if in practice the implementation o f this provision is reportedly
sometimes problematic) . The Special Rapporteur holds as a good practice the establishment
in Estonia of a Police Rapid Response Unit (riot police) which aims at protecting peaceful
demonstrators against attacks by provocateur s and counter -demonstrators and is trained in
how to separate the main provocateurs from peaceful demonstrators.
34. The Special Rapporteur expresses his utmost concern in relation to peaceful
assemblies that were either not allowed or violently dispersed in a number of countries,
such as in Bahrain, Belarus, China, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Malawi, Malaysia,
Sri Lanka and the Syrian Arab Republic. 21
35. The right to life (art . 3 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and art . 6 of
the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ) and the right to be free from torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art . 5 of the Declaration and art . 7 of the
Covenant ) should be the overarching principles governing the policing of public
assemblie s, as stated by several countries. In this regard, soft law provisions – the Code of
Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (in particular articles 2 and 3) and the Basic
Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (in particula r
principles 4, 9 and 13) – aim at guiding law enforcement officials when policing peaceful
protests. In this connection, the Inter -American Court on Human Rights stated that the
“pretext of maintenance of public security cannot be invoked to violate the r ight to life …
the State must ensure that, if it is necessary to resort to physical means … members of its
armed forces and its security bodies will use only those means that are indispensable to
control such situations in a rational and proportional ma nner, and respecting the rights to
life and to humane treatment”. 22 The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary o r
arbitrary executions also stated that “ the only circumstances warranting the use of firearms ,
including during demonstrations, is the imm inent threat of death or serious injury ”
(A/HRC/17/28, para. 60) . With regard to the use of tear gas, the Special Rapporteur recalls
that gas does not discriminate between demonstrators and non -demonstrators, healthy
people and people with health condition s. He also warns against any modification of the
chemical composition of the gas for the sole purpose of inflicting severe pain on protestors
and , indirectly , bystanders.

21 See , inter alia, reports on summaries of individual cases raised by special procedures mandate
holders, and on o bservations on communications transmitted to Governments and replies received , as
well as press releases iss ued by such mandate holders and high -level United Nations officials.
22 Inter -American Court of Human Rights judgement , Caracazo v. Venezuela (2002) , para. 127 .

A/HRC/20/27
11
36. The Special Rapporteur also refers to the Inter -American Commission on Human
Rights l ist of administrative controls that should be put in place at the State level to ensure
use of force during public assemblies on an exceptional basis. Among others, “ (a)
implementation of mechanisms to prohibit, in an effective manner, the use of lethal fo rce as
recourse in public demonstrations; (b) implementation of an ammunition registration and
control system; (c) implementation of a communications records system to monitor
operational orders, those responsible for them, and those carrying them out”. 23
37. The Special Rapporteur is opposed to the practice of “kettling” (or containment)
whereby demonstrators are surrounded by law enforcement officials and not allowed to
leave. He notes with satisfaction the statement of the Toronto police (Canada) which
decid ed to abandon the practice following controversy arising from the policing of the G -20
Summit in Toronto in 2010.
38. In general, the Special Rapporteur stresses the utmost importance of genuine
dialogue, including through negotiation, between law enforcement authorities and
organizers in order to ensure the smooth conduct of the public assembly, as it has
reportedly been the case in, inter alia, Guatemala, Hungary, Mexico and Switzerland.
(b) Negative obligation
39. States also have a negative obligation not to unduly interfere with the right to
peaceful assembly. The Special Rapporteur holds as best practice “laws governing freedom
of assembly [that] both avoid blanket time and location prohibitions, and provide for the
possibility of other less intrusive restri ctions … Prohibition should be a measure of last
resort and the authorities may prohibit a peaceful assembly only when a less restrictive
response would not achieve the legitimate aim(s) pursued by the authorities.” 24
40. As mentioned earlier, any restrictions imposed must be necessary and proportionate
to the aim pursued. Reference to the proportionality test is found in legislation governing
peaceful assemblies in a number of countries , including New Zealand and Switzerland. In
addition, such restrictions mus t be facilitated within “sight and sound” of its object and
target audience, 25 and “organizers of peaceful assemblies should not be coerced to follow
the authorities‟ suggestions if these would undermine the essence of their right to freedom
of peaceful ass embly”. 26 In this connection, he warns against the practice whereby
authorities allow a demonstration to take place, but only in the outskirts of the city or in a
specific square, where its impact will be muted.
41. The Special Rapporteur further concurs with t he assessment of the ODIHR Panel of
Experts that “the free flow of traffic should not automatically take precedence over freedom
of peaceful assembly”. 27 In this regard, the Inter -American Commission on Human Rights
has indicated that “the competent institu tions of the State have a duty to design operating
plans and procedures that will facilitate the exercise of the right of assembly … [including] rerouting pedestrian and vehicular traffic in a certain area”. 28 Furthermore, the Special
Rapporteur points to a decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court which stated that “in a
democratic society, the urban space is not only an area for circulation, but also for
participation”.

23 Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, para. 68.
24 See submis sion by the OSCE /ODIHR Panel of Experts.
25 Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly , p. 59.
26 See submission by the OSCE /ODIHR Panel of Experts.
27 Ibid.
28 Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, par a. 193. Available from
www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Seguridad.eng/CitizenSecurity.Toc.htm

A/HRC/20/27
12
42. The Special Rapporteur stresses the importance of the regulatory authorities
provi ding assembly organizers with “timely and fulsome reasons for the imposition of any
restrictions, and the possibility of an expedited appeal procedure” .29 The organizers should
be able to appeal before an independent and impartial court, which should take a decision
promptly. In several States, the regulatory authority has the obligation to justify its decision
(e.g. Senegal and Spain). In Bulgaria, the organizer of an assembly may file an appeal
within three days of receipt of a decision banning an assembly ; the competent
administrative court shall then rule on the ban within 24 hours, and the decision of the court
shall be announced immediately and is final. Similarly, in Estonia, a complaint may be filed
with an administrative court, which is required to m ake a decision within the same or next
day; the organizers may also launch a complaint with the Estonian Ombudsman.
(c) Build and strengthen the human rights capacity of administrative and law enforcement
officials
43. It is important that States ensure tha t administrative and law enforcement officials
are adequately trained in relation to the respect of the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly.
44. In countries where a regime of authorization is in place, the Special Rapporteur
believes that administrative off icials in charge of issuing authorizations should be subject to
oversight on a regular basis in order to make sure that they do not arbitrarily reject requests
to hold public assemblies (e.g. Slovenia). In this context, a workshop on the implementation
of the law on peaceful assembly for the attention of administrative officials in charge of
implementing the law was organized in Slovenia.
45. The Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction that, in most countries which
responded to the questionnaire, capacity -bu ilding activities on international human rights
law, and sometimes on international humanitarian law, are provided to law enforcement,
notably in police academies, and other authorities (e.g. Cote d‟Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba,
Estonia, Honduras, Germany, Guatem ala, Iraq, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Senegal, Spain,
Switzerland, United Kingdom and Uruguay). Such trainings were delivered in cooperation,
inter alia, with national human rights institutions (e.g. Denmark, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq,
Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, New Zealand, the Occupied Palestinian Territor y, Paraguay,
United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda), the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (e.g. Mexico and Uganda), the OSCE /ODIHR (e.g.
Armenia and Bulgaria), the European Commi ssion (e.g. Bulgaria), NGO s (e.g. Armenia,
Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Malaysia and Serbia), universities (e.g. Morocco and
Mexico), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (Peru). The Special Rapporteur
stresses the need to provide regula r follow -up trainings.
46. Several good initiatives were brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur,
which should be replicated. In Burkina Faso, a seminar on “public demonstration and
human rights: what strategy for a better collaboration between the different actors” was
conducted by the Ministry of Justice and the Promotion of Human Rights for the benefit of
security forces and NGOs . In Slovenia, training initiatives for law enforcements officials on
the use of non -lethal instruments of constraint (s uch as batons, tear gas and water canons)
when maintaining public order were delivered. In the United Kingdom, the police of several
counties appointed an independent human rights lawyer to advise them on the legality and
human rights implications of large -scale public order operations in relation to controversial
protests.

29 See submission by the OSCE /ODIHR Pan el of Experts.

A/HRC/20/27
13
47. The Special Rapporteur further considers as best practices training materials
developed with a view to preventing discriminatory treatment and measures against
women, minors, persons wit h disabilities, indigenous peoples, individuals and groups of
individuals belonging to minorities and other marginalized group s (e.g. Mexico, Serbia,
Slovenia and Spain).
4. Monitoring peaceful assemblies
48. The Special Rapporteur refers to the report to the General Assembly of the then
Special Representative of the Secretary -General on the situation of human rights defenders,
who stated that “monitoring of assemblies can provide an impartial and objective account
of what takes place, including a factual reco rd of the conduct of both participants and law
enforcement officials. This is a valuable contribution to the effective enjoyment of the right
to peaceful assembly. The very presence of human rights monitors during demonstrations
can deter human rights viol ations. It is therefore important to allow human rights defenders
to operate freely in the context of freedom of assembly” (A/62/225, para. 91). 30 Such
defenders include members of civil society organizations, journalists, “citizen journalists ”,
bloggers an d representatives of national human rights institutions.
49. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur considers good practice the invitation of the
London Metropolitan Police to Liberty, an independent human rights organization, to act as
independent observers when they were policing a Trades Union Congress march in London
in 2010. He also refers to the statement of the Vice -Chair of the Malaysian Human Rights
Commission (SUHAKAM) made during the panel discussion on the promotion and
protection of human rights i n the context of peaceful protests, at the nineteen th session of
the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/19/40, para. 33 ). The Vice -Chair highlighted, inter alia,
the monitoring role played by SUHAKAM during a sensitive public demonstration, by
deploying teams of observers.
50. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur supports the call of the ODIHR Panel of
Experts to undertake capacity -building activities for the benefit of NGO s and human rights
defenders on the ground to monitor assemblies and their policing on a s ystematic basis. In
this context, ODIHR trained assembly monitors in Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and Republic of Moldova, and issued the new Handbook on Monitoring
Freedom of Assembly in September 2011. 31
C. Best practices related to the righ t to freedom of association
1. Definition of an association
51. An “association” refers to any groups of individuals or any legal entities brought
together in order to collectively act, express, promote, pursue or defend a field of common
interests (see repor t of the Special Representative of the Secretary -General on human rights
defenders, A/59/401, para. 46).
52. The word “association ” refers, inter alia, to civil society organizations, clubs,
cooperatives, NGOs , religious associations, political parties, trade unions , foundations or
even online associations as the Internet has been instrumental, for instance, in “facilitating
active citizen participation in building democratic societies” (A/HRC/17/27, para. 2). The
Special Rapporteur underscores that these vari ous types of associations are, in most cases,
regulated by different types of legislations. As he has mainly received information

30 A/62/225, para. 91.
31 OSCE/ODIHR, 2011, Warsaw. Available from www.osce.org/odihr/82979 .

A/HRC/20/27
14
regarding allegations impacting civil society‟s work since the inception of his mandate, and
due to the word limit, th e presen t section of the report will primarily focus on this type of
association, but will address others when relevant. This will not prevent him from focusing
on other forms of associations in his future reports.
2. The right to form and to join an association
53. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that the right to form and join an association is
an inherent part of the right to freedom of association. It also includes the right to form and
join trade unions for the protection of one‟s interests, as enshrined in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights .
54. International human rights law stipulates that everyone has the rights to freedom of
association. As a result, legislation that d oes not set any specific limitation on individuals,
including children (e.g. national human rights institution of Cote d‟Ivoire) and foreign
nationals (e.g. Burkina Faso and the United States of America ) complies with international
standards. However, unde r international human rights law, members of the armed forces
and of the police may have their right lawfully restricted. Any restrictions must,
nevertheless, comply with States‟ international human rights obligations as blanket
restriction s shall not be c onsidered lawful. The Special Rapporteur further considers as a
best practice the Armenian and Estonian legislation that require no more than two persons
to establish an association. A higher number may be required to establish a union or a
political party , but this number should not be set at a level that would discourage people
from engaging in associations.
55. An important component of the right to freedom of association is that no one may be
compelled to belong to an association (e.g. Chile, Guatemala, Po rtugal and Republic of
Moldova ). Likewise, associations should be free to choose their members and whether to be
open to any membership. 32 This aspect is particularly relevant for unions or political parties
since a direct interference in their membership m ay jeopardize their independence. 33
56. The Special Rapporteur underlines that the right to freedom of association equally
protects associations that are not registered (e.g. Canada, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia
and the United States). Individuals involved in unregistered associations should indeed be
free to carry out any activities, including the right to hold and participate in peaceful
assemblies, and should not be subject to criminal sanctions, as the Special Rapporteur
regrets is the case in Algeria, Bel arus, Cambodia or the Syria n Arab Republic .34 This is
particularly important when the procedure to establish an association is burdensome and
subject to administrative discretion, as such criminalization could then be used as a means
to quell dissenting vie ws or beliefs.
57. The European Court on Human Rights clearly ruled “that citizens should be able to
form a legal entity in order to act collectively in a field of mutual interest is one of the most
important aspects of the right to freedom of association, wi thout which that right would be
deprived of any meaning” .35 The procedure to establish an association as a legal entity
varies from one country to another, but it is vital that Government officials act in good
faith, in a timely and non -selective manner. Th e Special Rapporteur considers as best

32 Key Guiding Principles of Fre edom of Association , para . 28.
33 ILO, Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing
Body of the ILO , Fifth (revised) edition (Geneva, 2006 ), para. 723 .
34 See footnote 21.
35 European Court of Human Rights, Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece , application No. 26695/95, 10
July 1998.

A/HRC/20/27
15
practice procedures which are simple, non -onerous or even free of charge (e.g. Bulgaria)
and expeditious (e.g. Japan where registration applications may be directly filled in online).
58. The Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that a “notification procedure ”, rather than
a “prior authorization procedure ” that requests the approval of the authorities to establish an
association as a legal entity, complies better with international human rights law and should
be implement ed by States. Under this notification procedure, associations are automatically
granted legal personality as soon as the authorities are notified by the founders that an
organization was created. In most countries, such notification is made through a writt en
statement containing a number of elements of information clearly defined in the law, but
this is not a precondition for the existence of an association. It is rather a submission
through which the administration records the establishment of the said ass ociation. Such a
notification procedure is in force in a number of countries (e.g. Cote d‟Ivoire, Djibouti,
Morocco, Portugal, Senegal, Switzerland and Uruguay).
59. The Special Rapporteur believes the formation of branches of associations, foreign
associatio ns or unions or networks of associations, including at the international level,
should be subject to the same notification procedure.
60. Under both notification and prior authorization regimes, registration bodies must be
bound to act immediately and laws sh ould set short time limits to respond to submissions
and applications respectively. The Special Rapporteur echoes a ruling of the European
Court which provided that “significant delays in the registration procedure, if attributable to
the Ministry of Justi ce, amounts to an interference with the exercise of the right of the
association‟s founders to freedom of association” .36 During this period associations should
be presumed to be operating legally until it is proven otherwise (e.g. Uruguay). Failure to
prov ide a response within a clear and short time limit should result in a presumption that
associations are operating legally (e.g. Austria).
61. Any decision rejecting the submission or application must be clearly motivated and
duly communicated in writing to th e applicant. Associations whose submissions or
applications have been rejected should have the opportunity to challenge the decision
before an independent and impartial court . In this regard, the Special Rapporteur refers to a
decision of the Freedom of As sociation Committee of the International Labour
Organization (ILO), in which it ruled that “the absence of recourse to a judicial authority
against any refusal by the Ministry to grant an authorization to establish a trade union
violates the principles of freedom of association”. 37
62. Newly adopted laws should not request all previously registered associations to re –
register so that existing associations are protected against arbitrary rejection or time gaps in
the conduct of their activities. For instance, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its
concluding observations on Nepal, expressed concerns over the wide -ranging restrictions,
such as re -registration requirements, placed by the authorities on civil society organizations
(CRC/C/15/Add.260, paras. 33 and 34 ).
3. The right to operate freely and to be protected from undue interference
(a) Positive obligation
63. The right to freedom of association obliges States to take positive measures to
establish and maintain an enabling environment. It is crucial t hat individuals exercising this

36 European Court of Human Rights , Ismayilov v. Azerbai jan , application No . 4439/04, 17 January
2008, para. 48 .
37 Digest of decisions and principles , para. 274 .

A/HRC/20/27
16
right are able to operate freely without fear that they may be subjected to any threats, acts
of intimidation or violence, including summary or arbitrary executions, enforced or
involuntary disappearances, arbitrary arrest o r detention, torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment , a media smear campaign, travel ban or arbitrary
dismissal, notably for unionists. One or several of such violations is/are found in, e.g.,
Belarus, Colombia, the Democratic Republ ic of the Congo , Egypt, Israel, the Philippines, ,
Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic and Zimbabwe. 38
(b) Negative obligation
64. Furthermore, States have a negative obligation not to unduly obstruct the exercise of
the right to freedom of association. Members of associations should be free to determine
their statutes, structure and activities and make decisions without State interference (e.g.
legislation in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Slovenia). Associations pursuing objectives and
employing means in accordance with international human rights law should benefit from
international legal protection. Associations should enjoy, inter alia, the rights to express
opinion, disseminate information, engage with the public and advocate before G overnments
and international bodi es for human rights, for the preservation and development of a
minority‟s culture 39 or for changes in law, including changes in the Constitution. 40 The
Special Rapporteur recognizes that the formation of associations embracing minority or
dissenting views or beliefs may sometimes lead to tensions, but he emphasi zes the duty of
the State to ensure that everyone can peacefully express their views without any fear . For
instance, in Lesotho, the Registrar General registered the first ever lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender organization in the country called Matrix in November 2010 (after
numerous delays).
65. Authorities must also respect the right of associations to privacy as stipulated in
article 17 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . In this connec tion , authorities
should not be entitled to: condition any decisions and activities of the association; reverse
the election of board members; condition the validity of board members‟ decisions on the
presence of a Government representative at the board me eting or request that an internal
decision be withdrawn; request associations to submit annual reports in advance; and enter
an association‟s premises without advance notice. The Special Rapporteur recognizes the
right of independent bodies to examine the associations‟ records as a mechanism to ensure
transparency and accountability, but such a procedure should not be arbitrary and must
respect the principle of non -discrimination and the right to privacy as it would otherwise
put the independence of associa tions and the safety of their members at risk. As a best
practice, the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples‟ Rights found that
the right to freedom of association had been violated when the Government of Nigeria
provided the Nigerian Bar Association with a new governing body and laid down that 97 of
the 128 members constituting this body would be appointed by the Government (report of
the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, A/64/226, para. 34 ).
(c) Build and s trengthen the human rights capacity of administrative officials
66. The Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction that in Slovenia the Ministry of
Interior is reportedly regularly supervising the work of its administrative units and checking
the legality of h ow the registration procedures are conducted. During the supervision,
officers in charge of the procedures are offered expert help and interpretation of the law.

38 See footnote 21.
39 European Court of Human Rights , Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece , application No. 74989/01, 20
October 2005, par a. 40 .
40 European Court of Human Rights , Zhechev v. Bulgaria , application No. 57045/00, 21 June 2007.

A/HRC/20/27
17
4. The right to access funding and resources
67. The ability for associations to access funding and resources is an integral and vital
part of the right to freedom of association. The Special Rapporteur makes reference to ILO
principles which underline that “provisions which give the authorities the right to restrict
the freedom of a trade union to a dminister and utilize its funds as it wishes … are
incompatible with the principles of freedom of association” .41 Numerous United Nations
human rights bodies have also emphasi zed the principle that associations should access
funding freely. 42
68. Any associatio ns, both registered or unregistered, should have the right to seek and
secure funding and resources from domestic, foreign, and international entities, including
individuals, businesses, civil society organizations, Governments and international
organizati ons. Nonetheless, the Special Rapporteur notes with concerns that , in some
countries, only registered associations are eligible for funding and resources. In this
context, it appears essential that rules regulating the creation of associations comply with
the aforementioned identified best practices to allow any associations to access funding and
resources.
69. In many countries, domestic funding is very limited or non -existent, leading
associations to rely on foreign assistance to conduct their activities. The Special Rapporteur
echoes the recommendations put forward by the then Special Representative of the
Secretary -General on the situation of human rights defenders who affirmed that
“governments must allow access by NGOs to foreign funding as a part of inter national
cooperation, to which civil society is entitled to the same extent as Governments”
(A/59/401 , para. 82 ), He believes that the same principle should apply to any associations
regardless of the goals , in line with international law, they pursue. He considers as best
practice legislation that does not prescribe the approval of the authorities before receiving
domestic and foreign funding (e.g. Lebanon, Morocco and the United States). The barriers
to foreign funding range from undue delay in approval f or funding an association‟s project
(e.g. Bangladesh) to the requirement of obtaining a prior authorization from the authorities.
Some legislation even prohibits human rights associations from receiving more than 10 per
cent of their overall resources from foreign sources. In Ethiopia where this legislation is in
place, out of the 127 associations advocating for human rights active before the 2009
Charities and Societies Proclamation entered into force, very few reportedly still operate.
70. States have a resp onsibility to address money -laundering and terrorism, but this
should never be used as a justification to undermine the credibility of the concerned
association, nor to unduly impede its legitimate work. In order to ensure that associations
are not abused by terrorist organizations, States should use alternative mechanisms to
mitigate the risk, such as through banking laws and criminal laws that prohibit acts of
terrorism. In this context, all United Nations agencies, notably those focusing on actions
count ering terrorism, have a key role to play and bear the moral responsibility to ensure that
human rights in general, and freedom of association in particular, are not impaired by
counter -terrorism and anti -money -laundering regulations. All measures adopted i n this
context should promote transparency and engender greater confidence in the sector, across
the donor community and with the general public so that charitable funds and services
reach intended legitimate beneficiaries.

41 Digest of decisions and principles , para. 485 .
42 See Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, c oncluding observations on
Lithuania, A/55/38, para. 155; Committee on the Rights of the Child, concluding observations on the
Central African Republic, CRC/C/15/Add.138, par as. 22 and 23; Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination on Ireland, CERD/C/IRL/CO/2, para.12.

A/HRC/20/27
18
71. As far as political parties are concerned, the Special Rapporteur considers that
different rules may be applied. In any case, rules governing domestic funding and resources
must be non -discriminatory and their implementation should not be arbitrary, with a view
to not jeopardizing the i ndependence of political parties and their ability to genuinely
compete in elections. Foreign donations may be regulated, limited or prohibited to avoid
undue influence of foreign interests in domestic political affairs.
72. The Special Rapporteur indicates th e necessity for States not resort to tax pressure to
discourage associations from receiving funds, notably from abroad. On a positive note,
several States provide tax and other exemptions and privileges for associations (e.g.
Bulgaria and Lithuania).
5. The right to take part in the conduct of public affairs
73. Article 71 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that “the Economic and
Social Council may make suitable arrangements for consultation with non -governmental
organizations which are concerned with matters within its competence” . General comment
No. 25 (1996) on the right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of
equal access to public service further provides that “the right to freedom of association,
including the right to form and join organizations and associations concerned with political
and public affairs, is an essential adjunct to the rights protected by article 25” (para. 26). In
Lithuania, article 4 of the Law on Procedure for Drafting Laws provides that all lega l and
natural persons shall have the right to submit proposals on drafting of a legal act. Both
individuals involved in association and the association itself must be protected by
international human rights law and shall be able to participate in the State ‟s decision
making process. This is particularly crucial for unions as the right to bargain collectively is
a fundamental right, which is enshrined in ILO Convention No. 98 (1949) on Right to
Organi se and Collective Bargaining . In this regard, the Special Rapporteur recognizes that
best practices are those that allow for genuine social dialogue with meaningful negotiation.
74. Furthermore, when State authorities intend to regulate the framework governing
associations, beneficiaries of the law should be key part ners of the drafting process. In
Serbia, the law on association was prepared by a working group composed of
representatives of the Ministry of Human and Minority Rights, and of associations. On
another note, the 2011 New Zealand Disability Bill was reporte dly drafted with the
participation of the Disabled Persons‟ Association .
6. Termination, suspension and dissolution of associations
75. The right to freedom of association applies for the entire life of the association .43
The suspension and the involuntarily dissolution of an association are the severest types of
restrictions on freedom of association. As a result, it should only be possible when there is a
clear and imminent danger resulting in a flagrant violation of national law, in compliance
with internat ional human rights law. It should be strictly proportional to the legitimate aim
pursued and used only when softer measures would be insufficient.
76. According to ILO jurisprudence, decisions to dissolve labour organi zations “should
only occur in extremely s erious cases; such dissolutions should only happen following a
judicial decision so that the rights of defence are fully guaranteed” .44 The Special
Rapporteur values as best practice legislation that stipulates that such drastic measures be
taken by indepen dent and impartial courts. In the United Republic of Tanzania, the case of

43 European Court of Human Rights, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey , No.
19392/92, par a. 33 .
44 Digest of decisions and principl es, para. 699 .

A/HRC/20/27
19
an association working on gender equality that had been deregistered by the authorities was
successfully overturned by the Constitutional Court.
D. The right to an effective remed y and accountability for human rights
violations and abuses
77. States have an obligation to establish accessible and effective complaints
mechanisms that are able to independently, promptly and thoroughly investigate allegations
of human rights violations or abuses in order to hold those responsible accountable. This
not only entails guarantees that the violation be stopped, but also that it will not be repeated
in the future. Specific attention must be paid to members of the groups at risk identified in
parag raph 13.
78. The Special Rapporteur considers as best practice legislation which provides for
criminal and disciplinary sanctions against those who interfere with or violently disperse
public assemblies through excessive use of force (e.g. Bulgaria, Burkina Fa so, Colombia,
Cote d‟Ivoire, Cuba, Estonia, Japan, Kyrgyz stan , Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Serbia
and Spain ). More specifically, in Colombia, according to the law, the excessive or arbitrary
use of force against peaceful demonstrators constitutes a grav e breach, under the
disciplinary regime for the national police. Similarly, in Portugal, a decree -law foresees
sanctions against authorities who hinder the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, and
article 382 of Criminal Code sets the applicable sanction s in relation to the abuse of power.
79. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur stresses the importance of police officers
wearing visible identification numbers on their uniforms. As noted by the Hungarian Office
of the Commissioner for Fundamental Right s, during a protest that was violently repressed
in the country, many police officers could not be identified because they did not wear such
identification numbers.
80. National human rights institutions, which comply with the principles relating to the
status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (Paris
Principles) , can also play a role in receiving and investigating allegations of human rights
violations and abuses (e.g. Malaysia and Portugal). The work of these institution s should be
respected and facilitated by the authorities.
81. Where the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are unduly
restricted, the victim(s) should have the rights to obtain redress and to fair and adequate
compensation. Once again, d ue attention must be paid to victims belonging to the groups
most at risk in this process.
IV. Conclusions and recommendations
82. The Special Rapporteur reiterates the utmost importance of the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, which are cornerstone in any
democracy.
83. Based on the best practices identified in the foregoing paragraphs, which
should be considered as minimum standards, the Special Rapporteur anticipates that
the recommendations below will guide States in facilitating and protecting the rights
to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association , in law and in practice .

A/HRC/20/27
20
A. General recommendations
84. The Special Rapporteur calls upon States:
(a) To recognize that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association play a decisive role in the emergence and existence of effective democratic
systems as they are a channel allowing for dialogue, pluralism, tolerance and
broadmindedness , where minority or dissenting views or beliefs are respected ;
(b) To ensure that the rights to f reedom of peaceful assembly and of
association are enjoyed by everyone and any registered or unregistered entities,
including women; youth; indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, persons
belonging to minority groups or groups at risk, including tho se victims of
discrimination because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, non -nationals,
as well as activists advocating econom ic, social, and cultural rights ;
(c) To ensure that no one is criminalized for exercising the rights to
freedom of peacef ul assembly and of association, nor is subject to threats or use of
violence, harassment, persecution, intimidation or reprisals ;
(d) To strictly and narrowly define the offence of terrorism in line with
international law ;
(e) To ensure that any restrictions on th e rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association are prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society,
and proportionate to the aim pursued, and do not harm the principles of pluralism,
tolerance and broadmindedness. Any restrictions should be subject to an independent,
impartial, and prompt judicial review ;
(f) To ensure no derogation is exercised to the rights to life and to be free
from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ;
(g) To provide individuals exercising the ir rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association with the protection offered by the right to freedom of
expression ;
(h) To ensure that administrative and law enforcement officials are
adequately trained in relation to the respect of the rights to f reedom of peaceful
assembly and of association ;
(i) To ensure that law enforcement authorities which violate the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are held personally and fully
accountable for such violations by an independent and democ ratic oversight body, and
by the courts of law ;
(j) To ensure that victims of violations and abuses of the rights to freedom
of peaceful assembly and of association have to the right to an effective remedy and
obtain redress ;
(k) To recognize that the rights to fr eedom of peaceful assembly and of
association can be exercised through new technologies, including through the Internet.
85. National human rights institutions complying with the Paris Principles should
play a role in fostering and monitoring the implementatio n of the rights to freedom of
peaceful assembly and of association and in receiving and investigating allegations of
related human rights violations and abuses .
86. United Nations institutions, bodies and mechanisms should continue promoting
and protecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. In
particular, the Human Rights Committee should consider developing general

A/HRC/20/27
21
comments on articles 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights . G reater attention to violat ions and abuses of both rights should be paid in the
framework of the universal periodic review.
87. The i nternational community should seriously consider adopting guiding
principles in relation to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to
freedom of association, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.
B. Specific recommendations
1. Freedom of peaceful assembly
88. A presumption in favour of holding peaceful assemblies should be established
in law in a clear and explicit manner.
89. States should facilitate and protect peaceful assemblies , including through
negotiation and mediation . Wherever possible, l aw enforcement authorities shou ld not
resort to force during peaceful assemblies and ensure that, “where force is absolutely
necessary, no one is subject to excessive or indiscriminate use of force ” (Council
resolution 19/35, para. 6) .
90. The exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly should not be subject
to prior authorization by the authorities, but at the most to a prior notificat ion
procedure, which should not be burdensome. In case an assembly is not allowed or
restricted, a detailed and timely written explanation should be provided, which can be
appealed before an impartial and independent court.
91. Spontaneous assemblies should be recognized in law, and exempted from prior
notification.
92. Simultaneous assemblies should be allowed, protected and facilitated, whenever
possible.
93. Assembly organizers and participants should not be held responsible and liable
for the violent behaviour of o thers.
94. State s should also ensure the protection of those monitoring and reporting on
violations and abuses in the context of peaceful assemblies.
2. Freedom of association
95. A regime of notification to establish an association should be in force.
Associati ons should be established after a process that is simple, easily accessible, non –
discriminatory, and non -onerous or free of charge. Regist ration bodies should provide
a detailed and timely written explanation when denying the registration of an
association . Associations should be able to challenge any rejection before an impartial
and independent court.
96. Any associations, including u nregistered associations , shou ld be allowed to
function freely, and their members operate in an enabling and safe environment.
97. Associations should be free to determine their statutes, structure and activities
and to make decisions without State interference.
98. Associations should enjoy the right to privacy.
99. Associations should be able to access domestic and foreign funding and
reso urces without prior authorization.

A/HRC/20/27
22
100. Suspension or involuntarily dissolution of associations should be sanctioned by
an impartial and independent court in case of a clear and imminent danger resulting
in a flagrant violation of domestic laws, in compliance w ith international human
rights law.