A/HRC/20/27 42. The Special Rapporteur stresses the importance of the regulatory authorities providing assembly organizers with “timely and fulsome reasons for the imposition of any restrictions, and the possibility of an expedited appeal procedure”.29 The organizers should be able to appeal before an independent and impartial court, which should take a decision promptly. In several States, the regulatory authority has the obligation to justify its decision (e.g. Senegal and Spain). In Bulgaria, the organizer of an assembly may file an appeal within three days of receipt of a decision banning an assembly; the competent administrative court shall then rule on the ban within 24 hours, and the decision of the court shall be announced immediately and is final. Similarly, in Estonia, a complaint may be filed with an administrative court, which is required to make a decision within the same or next day; the organizers may also launch a complaint with the Estonian Ombudsman. (c) Build and strengthen the human rights capacity of administrative and law enforcement officials 43. It is important that States ensure that administrative and law enforcement officials are adequately trained in relation to the respect of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. 44. In countries where a regime of authorization is in place, the Special Rapporteur believes that administrative officials in charge of issuing authorizations should be subject to oversight on a regular basis in order to make sure that they do not arbitrarily reject requests to hold public assemblies (e.g. Slovenia). In this context, a workshop on the implementation of the law on peaceful assembly for the attention of administrative officials in charge of implementing the law was organized in Slovenia. 45. The Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction that, in most countries which responded to the questionnaire, capacity-building activities on international human rights law, and sometimes on international humanitarian law, are provided to law enforcement, notably in police academies, and other authorities (e.g. Cote d‟Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, Honduras, Germany, Guatemala, Iraq, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Senegal, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Uruguay). Such trainings were delivered in cooperation, inter alia, with national human rights institutions (e.g. Denmark, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, New Zealand, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Paraguay, United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (e.g. Mexico and Uganda), the OSCE/ODIHR (e.g. Armenia and Bulgaria), the European Commission (e.g. Bulgaria), NGOs (e.g. Armenia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Malaysia and Serbia), universities (e.g. Morocco and Mexico), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (Peru). The Special Rapporteur stresses the need to provide regular follow-up trainings. 46. Several good initiatives were brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur, which should be replicated. In Burkina Faso, a seminar on “public demonstration and human rights: what strategy for a better collaboration between the different actors” was conducted by the Ministry of Justice and the Promotion of Human Rights for the benefit of security forces and NGOs. In Slovenia, training initiatives for law enforcements officials on the use of non-lethal instruments of constraint (such as batons, tear gas and water canons) when maintaining public order were delivered. In the United Kingdom, the police of several counties appointed an independent human rights lawyer to advise them on the legality and human rights implications of large-scale public order operations in relation to controversial protests. 29 12 See submission by the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts.