A/HRC/29/25 mandate holders about these companies suppressing legitimate advocacy activity, particularly social protest, and their attacks on human rights defenders (see A/HRC/7/7/Add.4, para. 71, and A/HRC/19/55, para. 63). In his view, the potential for violations of rights, including to peaceful assembly and association rights, is particularly high when law enforcement responsibilities are ceded to private actors, who are accountable to their clients rather than to the public. Private security companies have also been known to receive concessions to exploit natural resources in exchange for their services, further blurring the interests and relationships between the actors (see A/61/341, para. 74). 56. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that the primary responsibility for ensuring public security, law and order for the benefit of all within a State’s boundaries lies with the Government of that State. The State should also regulate, control and monitor the activities of private security firms, including those contracted in the natural resource exploitation sector, and hold them accountable when they breach the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. F. Challenges to the right to freedom of association 57. Associations involved in environmental protection, or community mobilization against natural resource exploitation activities, or generally any activities that are perceived as a threat to natural resource exploitation operations, face heightened risks of restrictions of their rights. Associations are a vehicle for people to join their voices together on an issue of common concern, thus amplifying their grievances. Associations also gather together or facilitate access to resources, such as funding, skills, knowledge and solidarity. This aggregation brings increased power and, when this power is deployed to oppose natural resource exploitation activities, it can be threatening to those with financial stakes in the projects. It is thus not surprising that States and corporations may use a variety of measures to interfere with the right to freedom of association. 58. Restrictive laws, for example, are used to target organizations working on issues that the authorities find sensitive. Emblematic of this approach is the use by Ecuador of Executive Decree No. 16 to close the Pachamama Foundation, which had worked peacefully and legitimately for 18 years to defend human rights, especially the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon (A/HRC/26/21 and ECU 4/2013). 59. The Special Rapporteur has on many occasions emphasized that the right to freedom of association applies to informal associations and does not require that a group be registered. If a registration regime is to be established, he favours a “notification” regime for the establishment of associations rather than “authorization”. A notification system has a particular resonance in the context of natural resource exploitation, where lobbying and advocacy is often done through social movements that may not have a formal organizational structure. Authorities and companies may be less inclined to engage with these movements because of their informal nature and may in fact accuse them of being illegal for being unregistered. 60. The ability of associations to participate in consultation procedures, such as environmental and social impact assessments, should not be predicated on onerous conditions, including registration requirements, membership or activities stipulated in their charter or statutes. The Special Rapporteur notes efforts made by Austria and Romania to ensure community engagement during impact assessment processes and Armenia to ensure 17