A/HRC/20/27 36. The Special Rapporteur also refers to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights list 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 force 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 decided 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 restrictions … 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 must 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 assembly”.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 the 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 institutions 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 24 25 26 27 28 Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, para. 68. See submission by the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts. Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, p. 59. See submission by the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts. Ibid. Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, para. 193. Available from www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Seguridad.eng/CitizenSecurity.Toc.htm 11