Volume 2, Issue 4: Freedom of Assembly
Letter from the Editor
Peaceful assemblies can serve many purposes, including the expression of views and the defense of
common interests. The fr eedom of peaceful assembly can be an important strand in the maintenance and
development of culture, and in the preservation of minority identities. It is also recognized as one of the
foundations of a functioning democracy, and its protection is crucial f or creating a tolerant society in
which groups with different beliefs, practices, or policies can exist peacefully together.
-Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
Recent weeks and months have witnessed the transformational power of public protest, demonstration
and assembly. Most recently, in countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa, people have taken
to the streets to demand change. And in Tunisia and Egypt, change has come. But i n many other countries,
both within and beyond the Middle East – from Azerbaijan to Syria, and from China to Venezuela –severe
constraints on freedom of assembly continue to prevent citizens from coming together to collectively
express, promote, pursue and defend their interests:
 On January 30, 2011, a coalition of student movement groups organized mass demonstrations
involving thousands of activists in four cities in Sudan . In each city, the police and security agents
attacked demonstrators using tear gas, water pipes and sticks; more than 100 students and
journalists were arrested. [1]  On February 18, Bahraini security forces fired on protestors in Manama and wounded at leas t 38
people. [2]

 On March 31, police in Azerbaijan detained activists, who were then quickly convicted in summary
trials on charges of disobeying police orders and sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 5 -13 days
– in an effort to keep them from participating in planned protests on April 2nd. Anti -governme nt
protests went ahead on April 2nd nonetheless; riot police broke up the protests in Baku and arrested
an estimated 150 protestors. [3]  The wave of protest has risen in Syria , with tens of thousands taking to the streets in March and April.
In recent weeks, Syrian security forces have launched a deadly crackdown on demonstrations, killing
at least 200 people, according to human rights groups. [4] Problems relating to protest and assembly are, of course, not limited to authoritarian regimes. State
regulation of assemblies and the policing of public protest is a controversial issue in many count ries
around the world. Governments including Canada and Denmark have come under heavy criticism by
human rights groups for their response to street protests at recent intergovernmental meetings. The G20
meetings in Toronto, Canada , in 2010 witnessed what h as been called the largest mass arrest in Canadian
history, with hundreds of peaceful protestors arrested and detained for extended time periods; no charges
were brought against most of the detainees. [5] And hundreds of demonstrators were arrested in clashes
with riot police in Copenhagen, Denmark during the December 2009 climate change talks. [6] Unfortunately, however, the law is too often used to narrow the space for assembly. [7] In this issue of
Global Trends in NGO Law we address laws that restrict the free dom of citizens and groups to exercise
their right to assemble peacefully. We begin with a brief introduction to the international legal framework
governing the freedom of assembly. We then examine several restrictive elements of laws that specifically
gov ern public gatherings or meetings. Finally, we consider how legal provisions governing
communications can have a chilling effect on free assembly.
I. Introduction
The freedom of assembly – the well -spring of the right to gather in public, to demonstrate a nd to protest
– is enshrined in international legal instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 21 of the ICCPR states:

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this
right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre publi c), the protection of public
health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. [8] It is the duty of States to make this right meaningful in practice. A sound legal framework to protect and
enable assembly is fundamental. According to the Inter -American Commission on Human Rights, “the
rights to freedom of assembly and of association have been broadly recognized as significant individual
civil as well a s political rights that protect against arbitrary interference by the state when persons choose
to associate with others, and are fundamental to the existence and functioning of a democratic society.” [9] There are very limited conditions under which restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly are
permissible under international law, and each restriction is subject to a rigorous legal analytical test, as
defined by the ICC PR in Article 21. [10] Restrictions by the state are only justifiable if they are done “in
conformity with the law” and in the pursuit of one of the legitimate aims “necessa ry in a democratic
society” set forth in Article 21 of the ICCPR. [11] Terms such as “national security” and “public safety” refer
to situations involving an immediate and v iolent threat to the nation or to its territorial integrity or
political independence. [12] Nationwide limitations imposed on the basis of merely isolated or localized
threa ts cannot be justified, therefore, and are impermissible. [13] The laws presented in this issue of Global Trends , appear to be incompatible with international law
because they erect legal barriers not able to withstand the legal test, as defined by the ICCPR in Article 21,
and other conventions protecting the right to free assembly. These legal barriers include bans on public
gatherings; requirements of advance notification amounting to permission; excessive government
discretion in decision -making; restrictions relating to the substantive focus of public gatherings;
restrictions relating to who may participate in pu blic gatherings; burdensome liabilities placed on
organizers of public gatherings; limits on public statements; criminal punishments against those who
violate legal requirements; and the use of disproportionate force against the organizers. In the followin g
sections, we provide illustrative examples of these legal barriers. [14]

II. Restrictions on Public Gatherings, Meetings, Demonstrations,
Protests (Free Assembly)
Bans on Public Gatherings
The most extreme barrier to freedom of assembly is the prohibition of public gatherings.
 The Government in Saudi Arabia warned in early March that it would enforce the law banning public
demonstrations. According to the Interior Ministry, demonstrations are prohibited “because these
contradict the principles of Islamic law and the values and norms of the Saudi society; they further
lead to public disorder, harm to public and private interests, breach of the rights of others, and to
wreaking havoc that result in bloodshed.” [15]  While the interim government in Tunisia has revoked the state -wide curfew, officials have extended
the ban on public gather ing of more than three people. [16]  The law in Myanmar (Burma) prohibits public gatherings through multiple layers of regulation. Article
144 of the Penal Code bans groups of 5 people gathering together. SLORC [17] Order No. 2 (1988)
bans “gathering, walking, marching in procession, chanting slogans, delivering speeches, agitating,
or creatin g disturbances on the streets of five or more people … regardless of whether the act is with
the intention of creating a disturbance or of committing a crime or not.” And most recently, Directive
2/2010, issued on 23 June 2010, prohibits the act of marchin g to the gathering point “holding flags
or marching and chanting slogans in procession”.
 Under the state of emergency decree issued in Thailand in April 2010, police were authorized to
disperse peaceful assemblies; public gatherings of more than 5 people w ere banned; and suspects
could be detained for 30 days without charge. [18]  On January 13, 2011, Tuvalu invoked the Public Order Ordinance for the first time, issuing a 14 -day
ban on large public meetings or gatherings. The ban came in the wake of a public protest march
demanding the resignation of the Finance Minister. [19] Advance Notificat ion Amounting to Permission

Advance notification of public gatherings is a common regulatory requirement, and has been upheld by
the UN Human Rights Committees and regional human rights mechanisms. [20] International law is clear,
however, that notification requirements should not constitute a request for permission. [21]  The Federal Law on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Pickets (2004) in Russia
requires notification to the government for any public event, except for a rally or picketing held by a
single participant. (Article 7) The promoter of the ev ent must notify the government in writing not
later than 10 days prior to holding the public event. (Article 7) Based on governmental rhetoric [22] and crackdowns of unauth orized protests []23, the notification requirement amounts to a requirement
of advance permission.
 Two human rights defenders in South Korea were recently arrested and conv icted for peacefully
protesting without police permission. Prior to the protest, they submitted the required notification,
but were turned down five times by police who said the protests could become violent. The protests
took place anyway, and the two org anizers were charged with “hosting an illegal protest.” In practice,
“[t]he broad discretion police have to issue prohibition notices effectively means that protests can
only take place with police permission.” [24]  Article 3 of the Public Meetings and Events Law in Cameroon requires organizers of public meetings
to notify officials at least three days in advance; and to obtain a permit from administrative
authorities. [25] The law does not require prior government approval. However, in practice, the
government often refuses to issue permits to organizers for assemblies organized by persons or
groups critical of the government. [26] On May 3, 2010 security forces prevented members of the
Union of Cameroonian journalists (UCJ) from demonstrating in Yaoundé becaus e the authorities
claimed the UCJ had not provided ample notice of the event to the appropriate authority. [27]  The Venezuelan Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings, an d Protests, in Article 43, states that
written notice to hold public meetings is required with at least 24 hours’ advance notice; the request
must include the objective; and authorities must agree to the proposed time and place of the public
meeting or dem onstration. [28] On December 23, 2010, hundreds of University students were
prevented from demonstrating against a new law affecting University curriculum, by riot police w ho
claimed the demonstration had not been authorized. [29]

 The Public Order Act 30 in Za mbia requires organizers of public meetings to notify the policy seven
days in advance of the meeting. Article 5(8), however, speaks not of notice but of permitting, when it
authorizes the police to “stop any procession for which no permit has been issued. ” Moreover, Article
7 provides that any assembly “for which a permit is required … and which takes place without the
issue of such permit … shall be deemed to be an unauthorized assembly” and all those taking part in
the assembly may be arrested and liable to criminal penalties. In sum, the “notification” requirement
is tantamount to a permitting process.
Excessive Government Discretion
The use of vague, ambiguous language in laws regulating public gatherings invites the exercise of
excessive government dis cretion, and may result in subjective and arbitrary decision -making by regulating
authorities.
 Article 48 of the Venezuelan Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings, and Protests prohibits the use
of uniforms during public meetings, but fails to define th e term “uniform”; the distribution of T -shirts
at public gatherings by CSOs in Venezuela could run afoul of this prohibition. In addition, Article 51
authorizes the government to dissolve assemblies that “disrupt normal party or government functions
or the flow of transit, or which incite disruptions.” [31]  According to the 2009 Law on Demonstrations in Cambodia , the competent authorities shall respond
positively to a notification letter, unless “there is clear information indicating that the demonstration
may cause danger or may seriously jeopardize security, safety and public order.” [32] It is unclear
what “clear information” means in this context
 The Public Order and Security Act (POSA) of Zimbabwe provides regulatory authorities, including the
police, with substantial power t o interfere with private as well as public meetings of organizations.
While Article 2 of the POSA specifically excludes from the law’s purview “meeting[s] of any
organisation held in any private place; or any public place that is not wholly in the open;” A rticle 23 (8)
provides the government the right to request that organizations holding non -public gatherings
“submit to [the regulating authority] from time to time or at such regular intervals as it may require a
list of the members of the [organization] w ho are entitled to attend the meeting[s] concerned.” The

POSA also allows authorities to place restrictions on any public meeting or demonstration [33] or
prohibit it entir ely; [34] if they have “reasonable grounds for believing” the gathering will result in
“public disorder, a breach of the peace, or obstruction of any thoroughfare.” [35] The law also allows
police to prohibit public demonstrations in any area for up to one month. [36] Content -Based Restrictions
Laws may specifically target (and restrict) public gatherings and meetings with “political” content.
 The draft Public Order Management Bill introduced in Uganda in 2010 would, if enacted, provide the
legal basis for the Government to control and even to prevent certain gatherings defined as “public
meetings.” A “public meeting” is defined to include a gathering of three of more persons in a public
place where the “principles, policy, actions or failure of any government, political party or political
organisation … are discussed; or held to form pressure groups to hand over petitions … or to
mobilise or demonstrate support for or opposition to the views, principles, policy, actions or
omissions” of another person, organization, the government or political party. (Section 6) The
targeted focus of the Bill on the substantive content of public meetings suggests a legislative purpose
to regulate meetings intended to affe ct public opinion on public policy issues. In short, the regulatory
focus of the Bill is on political discussion and debate.
 In Ecuador , criminal laws have been enacted to punish citizens who publicly protest against public
works projects that affect the e nvironment and indigenous communities. Articles 246 -248 of the
Penal Code subject those who “obstruct” the execution of public works projects to a fine and/or
imprisonment up to three months. [37] Restrictions on Categories of Persons
Laws may specifically restrict or prohibit certain individuals or categories of individuals from participating
in public gatherings and demonstrations.
 In many countries, universities have ser ved as hotbeds of political activism and student movements
for change. In Malaysia , however, it is illegal for students to join political parties or take part in
political campaigns or protests; students who do so risk expulsion and fines. Under the 1971

Universities Act [38] , students are barred from expressing “support, sympathy or opposition” to any
political party or trade union, domestic or foreign. Four students are no w planning a constitutional
challenge to this law. [39]  The 2009 Law on Demonstrations in Cambodia refers to freedom of assembly only with regards to
Khmer citizens, and th ereby seems to exclude foreigners from the embrace of freedom of assembly.
(Article 2)
 The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community is often the target of restrictions on
the freedom of assembly. In Hungary , for example, the 2011 gay pride parade, organized by the
Rainbow Mission Foundation, was banned by the Hungarian police. Interestingly, the Foundation had
received permission, but requested an extension of the parade route so as to appear before the
Parliament building, in order to voice opposition to the newly proposed constitution and the new
media law. Permission was withdrawn altogether. [40] Russia routinely prohibited the Moscow LGBT
pride para des in 2006, 2007 and 2008. [41]  Amendments to the Russian Law on Demonstrations, signed by President Medvedev in December
2010, prohibit people charged with minor administ rative offences from organizing or attending
rallies (or unsanctioned protests). [42] Responsibilities of Organizers
While it is not uncommon for laws to impose certain ob ligation on the organizers of public gatherings and
demonstrations, the responsibilities should not be so burdensome as to deter the gathering itself.
 Article 5 of the Public Meetings and Events Law of Cameroon requires the organizers of any public
meeting to appoint an “Executive” made up of three people who will be responsible for keeping the
peace during the pubic meeting. The “Executive” must “prevent any violation of law and prevent
speeches that conflict with public policy or are likely to incite peop le to commit felonies or
misdemeanors.” [43]  The draft Public Order Management Bill in Uganda , if enacted, would impose onerous burdens on
organizers. Among other obligati ons, organizers would have to “ensure that all participants are
unarmed and peaceful” [ 11(c )]; “ensure that statements made to the media and public do not conflict

with any existing laws of Uganda” [ 11(d )]; and “compensate any party of person that may suff er loss
or damage from any fall out of the public meeting” [ 11(g )]. Taken together, the responsibilities
imposed by the Bill on organizers of public meetings are so difficult to meet as to likely discourage
the exercise of and thereby constitute an infring ement on the freedom of assembly.
Restrictions on Public Statements
Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are inextricably intertwined. Laws restricting the ability to
make public statements may impact directly on the freedom of assembly.
 The Govern ment in Myanmar (Burma) used official media channels to warn that anyone who disrupts
the country’s election could face up to 20 years in prison. Through the New Light of Myanmar
(Myanmar’s state run press),, the regime reminded people that the 1996 Law on the Transfer of State
Responsibility is still in force, a law that provides up to 20 years imprisonment for anyone who
“incites, delivers a speech or makes oral or written statements that undermine the stability of the
state, community peace and tranquili ty and prevalence of law and order.” [44]  The Public Order and Security Act (POSA) of Zimbabwe empowers any government authorities to
prevent or disrupt any gathering where ver authorities believe that a seditious or subversive statement
is likely to be made. On April 13, 2011 police arrested Father Marko Mabutho Mkandla, a Catholic
priest, for holding a church service in memory of victims and survivors of the Gukurahundi mas sacres
of the mid -eighties. Authorities have accused Father Mkandla of violating the POSA and the Criminal
Law Codification Act by "holding a public meeting without police clearance” and "communicating false
statements against the state” and “causing offen ce to a particular tribe.” [45] Human rights groups
believe the Mugabe, regime is employing these laws “to try and silence all dissenting voices” ahead of
planned election s in the country. [46] Criminal Punishments
The use of criminal sanctions against individuals organizing or participating in illegal public gatherings
serves as a substant ial deterrent to the exercise of freedom of assembly.

 Articles 49 and 50 of the Venezuelan Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings, and Protests provide
for criminal penalties – up to 30 days of detention – for organizers of assemblies held in violation of
law. Speakers at unlawful assemblies face the same penalty. Individuals engaged in assem blies that
disrupt normal party or government functions or the flow of transit are also subject to 15 -30 days of
detention.
 The government of Ecuador has employed provisions in its Penal Code to discourage public protest.
Under Article 153 of the Penal Cod e those who “support, lead, or organize unauthorized public
protests on streets, squares or other open spaces could face imprisonment up to three months. [47] In addition, under Article 160.1 of the Penal Code acts of “sabotage and terrorism” carry a possible
prison sentence of four to eight years. [48] The definition of “sabotage and terrori sm” includes “crimes
against the common security of people or human groups of whatever kind, or against their property,”
by individuals or associations “whether armed or not.” [49] Recently, Article 160.1 in particular has
been used to prosecute hundreds of demonstrators. As of February 2011, 189 people have been
detained by the government on charges of sabotage and terrorism stemming from their participation
in protests. [50]  Similarly, in February 2008, in El Salvador , thirteen Salvadorans faced terrorism charges for their
participation in a protest against the privatization of water distri bution in the town of Suchitoto under
the Special Law against Acts of Terrorism. The law does not include an explicit definition of terrorism,
however, Article 1 states the purpose of the law is to prevent and punish crimes that “by their form of
execution , or means and methods employed, evidence the intention to provoke a state of alarm, fear
or terror in the population, by putting in imminent danger or affecting peoples’ life or physical or
mental integrity, or their valuable material goods, or the democr atic system or security of the State,
or international peace.” [51] The prosecution of demonstrators, who blocked roads or threw rocks
during protests, under this law, has been widely criticized for mischaracterizing acts of terrorism. [52] Disproportionate Force
Government crackdowns of public protest may rely on disproportionate force, res ulting in the injury or
death of those assembled and chilling future assemblies. Recent events have repeatedly demonstrated the

willingness of governments to rely on excessive force; several examples are highlighted in the
Introduction above. In some cases , the law may support or encourage the use of disproportionate force.
As but one example:
 The Constitution of Peru recognizes the right of peaceful assembly; however, the executive branch
issued a controversial decree in 2007 that amended Article 20 of th e Penal Code to limit police and
army liability in cases of death or injury when officers act within the scope of their authority. [53] Recently, tens of thousands of indig enous Peruvians have taken to the streets to protest against
newly enacted laws that grant corporations mining rights in indigenous territories without the
consent of the local communities. In several instances violent clashes with authorities occurred. Mo st
notably, the protests of May of 2009 when a state of emergency was declared, and police and army
troops used extreme force against the indigenous protesters, resulting in dozens of protester and
police fatalities. [54] III. Barriers to Communication
In order to plan demonstrations and protests, as well as to receive and exchange information more
broadly, the ability to communicate with colleagues both within and outside one’s own country is
fundamental. Modern technologies have dramatically expanded possibilities and means of communication.
Laws, however, too often seek to cut off communication, and to disrupt virtual assembly.
Legal barriers may seek to limit media and p ress coverage of upcoming demonstrations. As but one
example, Article 49 of the Venezuelan Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings, and Protests provides for
criminal and monetary penalties for companies that print or record announcements of public meeti ngs or
protests which authorities have publicly announced are in violation of the law.
Legal constraints (as well as travel restrictions) may limit contact with foreign governments and
organizations. In Tunisia , for example, representatives of Tunisian CSO s who have contact with foreign
governments or organizations are at risk of conviction and imprisonment, if Tunisian authorities
determine that these contacts “incited prejudice” against Tunisia’s vital interests, economic security, or
diplomatic relations – broad terms that give the government wide discretion to target disfavored groups.

In Venezuela , the Law for Protection of Political Liberty and National Self -Determination prohibits NGOs
from hosting a foreign citizen who speaks out in a manner that might offend State institutions or senior
officials.
The Government of Zimbabwe has gone further and sought to limit not only contact with foreign
colleagues, but the watching of Internet videos of events in foreign countries – namely, the uprisings in
the Middle East. Police in Harare, on February 19, raided a closed -door meeting at which a video on eve nts
in Tunisia and Egypt was shown. The police confiscated computers and arrested everyone there. 45
activists were formally charged with treason or with attempting to overthrow the government by
unconstitutional means. Convictions of these crimes carry pe nalties of life in prison or death for the
former, and up to 20 years for the latter. [55] The Chinese Government implements a policy called “stability maintenance” (“weiwe n”), which seeks,
among other things, to limit the planning and preparation of public gatherings and protests. As part of the
“weiwen” policy, the Government has established the Internet News Coordination Bureau, in order to police
social networking sites and other Internet forums. Internet users have been targeted and detained for
posting information about potential protests; at least five activists have been detained on charges of
endangering state security, subverting state power, and inciting subversion of state power. [56] Indeed, with the increasing power of the Internet, governments are increasingly seeking to regulate and
restrict the connectivity that the Internet of fers. Egypt , in the waning days of Mubarak’s regime, severed
itself from the global Internet for a five -day period. In Syria , the authorities have blocked Facebook and
other social network providers, including mobile messaging facilities (SMS). [57] In recent years, several
other countries – Nepal , Burma , Bahrain , Uganda and Yemen – have cut off communications via the
Internet. Such government efforts to restrict what’s been called the freedom of connect [58] is beyond the
scope of this report, but closely related to the ability to plan, inform and prepare for public gatherings and
demonstrati ons.
Conclusion

The threats to freedom of assembly are real. The legal barriers are formidable. At the same time, however,
there are significant opportunities for enabling reform and an expansion of civic space. Indeed, the reform
opportunities in the Midd le East were unimaginable six months ago.
In addition, the issue of assembly is receiving much -needed attention globally, through the UN Human
Rights Council (UNHRC). In September 2010, the UNHRC passed a Resolution on “The Rights of Freedom of
Peaceful A ssembly and of Association.” [59] The Resolution called for the appointment of a Special
Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association for the UNHRC. In March
2011, human rights campaigner Maina Kiai was appointed as the Special Rapporteur. His appointment has
been welcomed. [60] The spotlight he will shine on th e freedoms of assembly and association could not be
more timely.
Notes
[1] See The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), A protest for freedoms inspired by t he events
in Tunisia and Egypt severely repressed by the National and Security Service, February 10, 2011 available
at: https://www.fidh.org/A -protest -for -freedoms -inspired -by -the -events -in.
[2] See Human Rights Watch, Bahrain: Army, Police Fire on Protesters Donors Should Suspend Military
Assistance Now, February 18, 2011 available at: https://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/02/18/bahrain –
army -police -fire -protesters .
[3] See Human Rights Watch, Azerbaijan, Updated: Activists Jailed Ahead of Planned Protest International
Partners Should Condemn Crackdown, April 1, 2011 available at:
https://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/04/01/azerbaijan -updated -activists -jailed -ahead -planned -protest ;
see also Khadija Ismayilova for Eurasianet.org, Azerbaijan: Opposi tion Protest Results in Wave of Arrests,
April 4, 2011 available at: https://www.eurasianet.org/node/63222 .
[4] See Associated Press, 3 killed at Syrian protest after Assad vows reform , April 17, 2011.

not renounced its abstention. (Forsythe, David, Human Rights Fifty Years after the Universal Declaration,
PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 31, No.3 (Sep. 1998).
[11] “No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity
with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or pu blic
safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others .
[12] Manfred Nowak, UN Covena nt on Civil and Political Rights. Kehl 1993 p.394 -396.
[13] Id.
[14] We do not a ttempt to provide a comprehensive overview of the legal framework for freedom of
assembly or to highlight good regulatory practices. These are important issues and have been dealt with
elsewhere. See, e.g. , Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly , prepared by the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and specifically the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights (ODIHR), Warsaw (2007).
[15] Neela Banerjee, Los Angeles Times, Saudi Arabia activists warned that ban on protests will be
enforced , March 6, 2011, available at: https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la -fg-saudi –
protest -20110306,0,3128624.story . Despite the ban, protestors demonstrated in the city of Qatif on
March 10. Saudi security forces fired on the protestors, injuring three. See https://articles.cnn.com/2011 –
03 -10/world/saudi.arabia.protests_1_saudi -security -forces -saudi -expert -saudi -arabi a?_s=PM:WORLD
[16] VOA news, Tunisia Lifts Curfew, Extends State of Emergency , Feb. 15, 2011, available at:
https://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle -east/Tunisia -Lifts -Curfew -Extends -State -of-
Emergency -116245454.html .
[17] SLORC stands for the State Law and Order Restoration Council, which is the military junta ruling in
Myanmar. The ruling junta changed its name to the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) in 1997.

police detained dozens of democracy advocates in Moscow and St Petersburg, as they held rallies to
demand freedom of assembly.
[24] Catherine Baber, Amnesty International’s Asia -Pacific Deputy Program Director . See Amnesty
International, South Korean rights defenders convicted for helping victims of violations , January 24, 2011
available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/news -and -updates/south -korean -rights -defenders -convicted –
helping -victims -violatio ns -2011 -01 -24 .
[25] Loi N° 90/055 Du 19 Décembre 1990 Portant Regime Des Reunions Et Des Manifestations Publiques,
Article 3 available at: https://juriafrica.com/droit_legislation.html .
[26] See United States Department of State, 2010 Country Reports on Human Right s Practices – Cameroon ,
April 8, 2011, available at : https://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4da56ddd5.html .
[27] Id.
[28] Ley De Partidos Políticos, Reuniones Públicas y Manifestaciones, Gaceta Oficial N° 27.725 30 Abril
1965 modified by Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley de Partidos Políticos, Reuniones Públicas y
Manifestaciones, Gaceta Oficial N° 6.013 (EX) del 23 de diciembre de 2010.
[29] See BBC News, Venezuela students p rotest at university law , December 23, 2010 available at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world -latin -america -12071995.
[30] See translation available at https://www.saflii.org/zm/legis/consol_act/poa133/ .
[31] Ley De Partidos Políticos, Reuniones Públicas y Manife staciones, Gaceta Oficial N° 27.725 30 Abril
1965 modified by Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley de Partidos Políticos, Reuniones Públicas y
Manifestaciones, Gaceta Oficial N° 6.013 (EX) del 23 de diciembre de 2010.
[32] See unofficial translation of Law on Demonstrations, available at:
https://www.sithi.org/admin/upload/law/New_Law_on_Peaceful_Demonstration2009%28Eng%29.pdf .