A/HRC/44/50/Add.1 49. In Keppapilavu, he met with representatives of 100 families whose land had been occupied by the army since 2008. At the time of the meeting, the families had been peacefully protesting for the return of their land for 900 days, in front of the army compound where their land is located. For 792 days, they had been carrying out their protest on the road in front of the army compound. Thereafter, they had to relocate to a piece of previously released land under a temporary shed, following a court order obtained by the authorities. The order forbade gatherings of more than five persons at any one time at the protest site, and required them to refrain from chanting slogans, owing to supposed risks that such an activity could present to the security forces. While the representatives did not complain of any physical intimidation, they reported that they were psychologically affected by efforts to demoralize them and discourage them in their struggle. 50. While noting the efforts made by the Government to return military-occupied land to their original civilian owners, he considers it to be of utmost importance that such restitution happen promptly, transparently and in a non-discriminatory manner, and that the peaceful protests of those who are still dispossessed be allowed to take place with no undue restrictions. The fertile land occupied by the army in this instance is essential for the livelihoods of the families, and each day that passes without restitution puts additional strain on the women and men who must work as daily labourers, while keeping up the protest in the hopes that their demands are met. In addition, owing to a lack of economic opportunities, a number of the families’ members, including young people, have been forced to migrate long distances for work, which has exposed them to an array of other human rights abuses. What the Special Rapporteur found especially troubling in this circumstance was the belief of the families that the land was being retained purely for economic benefit, rather than for any specified reason legitimately connected with national security. 51. On several occasions, he received reports of the use of court injunctions to stop protests or to prevent them from taking place. It seems that these injunctions are usually obtained on the basis of anticipated public nuisance or disturbance, and that the police force may seek an injunction on its own initiative or following a complaint from the public. According to the information received, these court injunctions are frequently granted, despite the fact that typically, neither party has had an opportunity to present its case. Furthermore, they are often obtained after court hours, the evening before a protest, so as to give no opportunity to challenge them before a magistrate. 52. Reports of intimidation and surveillance were also frequently received by the Special Rapporteur in relation to peaceful protests. This was especially prevalent with regard to memorial services commemorating disappeared persons in the north and east. For example, he learned that on 18 May 2019, the Ampara chapter of the Families of the Disappeared organization attended a memorial ceremony at Thrikovil Manikka Pillayar temple, and that during the ceremony, a number of soldiers arrived and proceeded to destroy and remove banners and decorations, and also threatened to arrest and detain the participants. In other instances, civil society actors were questioned for hours by officers of the Criminal Investigation Department regarding their work, financial details, office space and participation in memorial ceremonies. 53. He also notes that the Government seems to have resorted to declaring certain employment sectors as essential public services, in order to restrict that sector’s right to strike and peacefully assemble. In June 2019, an order was gazetted, declaring that public transport services provided by any public corporation, government department, local authority or cooperative society, or any branch of those institutions, were an essential public service under article 2 of the Essential Public Services Act No. 61 of 1979. In such a case, it is a criminal offence to disrupt the working of such a service through participation in a strike. Similarly, in 2017, an order declared waste disposal as an essential service under article 17 of the Public Security Ordinance. He notes that, in these cases, protests seem to be stifled through the use of an executive decision, rather than through engaging with the concerned communities about their dissatisfaction and reasons for protesting. 9