A/HRC/23/57 12. The continuing control over the Kidal region exercised by MNLA constitutes a break in the constitutional order and a major obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights in the region, especially in view of the organization’s past and its links with armed groups such as AQIM, MUJAO and Ansar Dine which controlled the north of the country before the French and African forces intervened. According to witness reports, there have been numerous human rights violations attributable to MNLA in Kidal, including physical assaults, unlawful arrests and arbitrary detentions. Frequently the victims are Tuaregs, who are perceived as being close to factions opposed to MNLA, in favour of unity in Mali and supportive of the Government in Bamako. 13. The State of Mali’s lack of effective sovereignty in the Kidal region also threatens to undermine the exercise of citizens’ right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, notably through elections. Specifically, if the Malian authorities do not have safe access to Kidal prior to the elections, there is a serious risk that elections will not take place in Kidal or that, if they do, they will be marred by irregularities that compromise its peoples freedom of expression. 14. Given the symbolic importance of Kidal and the tense security climate reigning there, it is vital that the Malian Defence and Security Forces’ entry into Kidal, when it occurs, is properly monitored and that the army’s presence in the town is supervised, in order to prevent the risk of misconduct and human rights violations being committed against persons suspected of having supported MNLA and the secession of the north of Mali. C. Extension of the state of emergency 15. In order to conduct military operations in the north of the country, the Government of Mali declared a nationwide state of emergency on 13 January 2013 lasting for a period of 10 days. The state of emergency was then extended until 22 April 2013, in conformity with article 72 of the Constitution. The Government subsequently asked the National Assembly to extend the state of emergency a second time, until midnight on 6 June 2013, on the grounds that the objectives set in the initial declaration had not yet been achieved. 16. As established in the 1992 Constitution and regulated by Act No. 87-49 of 4 July 1987, the declaration of a state of emergency must be a response to an “imminent danger resulting from serious infringements of public order”, “subversive actions which compromise national security” or “events which, by virtue of their nature or seriousness, constitute a public disaster”. A state of emergency entails the implementation of measures derogating from ordinary law that are theoretically dictated by the exceptional circumstances and could potentially impede respect for human rights and civil liberties. For example, the administrative authorities are empowered to restrict or prohibit the movement of people and vehicles in certain places and at certain times, to place under house arrest any person whose actions are deemed a threat to security or public order and to order the temporary closure of public places. 17. In the current scenario, in which military operations in the north are coupled with an increasingly fragile political situation and imminent elections, it is important to remain vigilant as to the way in which the political, administrative and military authorities apply the powers vested in them under the state of emergency. In meetings with human rights observers, certain authorities affirmed that things that people might write during “normal times” might be prohibited and penalized during a state of emergency. Some officials also invoked the state of emergency as justification for the arrest without warrant and 6 GE.13-15228