A/HRC/20/27 25. The Special Rapporteur agrees that international human rights law only protects assemblies that are peaceful, i.e. those that are not violent, and where participants have peaceful intentions, which should be presumed. 9 According to the European Court of Human Rights, “an individual does not cease to enjoy the right to peaceful assembly as a result of sporadic violence or other punishable acts committed by others in the course of the demonstration, if the individual in question remains peaceful in his or her own intentions or behaviour”.10 2. The right to hold and to participate in a peaceful assembly 26. Fundamentally, the Special Rapporteur considers as a best practice the presumption in favour of holding peaceful assemblies, as stressed by the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly. Such a presumption should be “clearly and explicitly established in the law”,11 enshrined either in constitutions or in laws governing peaceful assemblies (e.g. as in Armenia and Romania). 27. The Special Rapporteur stresses that the enjoyment of the right to hold and participate in peaceful assemblies entails the fulfilment by the State of its positive obligation to facilitate the exercise of this right. In this regard, he highlights the Law on Assembly in Armenia, which states that the police shall be obliged to facilitate peaceful assemblies (art. 32, para. 2). He further notes with interest the statement of the Her Majesty‟s Inspectorate of Constabulary of the United Kingdom, an independent assessment institution, which stated that “the police as a service has recognized and adopted the correct starting point for policing protest as the presumption in favour of facilitating peaceful protest”.12 28. The Special Rapporteur believes that the exercise of fundamental freedoms should not be subject to previous authorization by the authorities (as explicitly expressed in the Spanish Constitution), but at the most to a prior notification procedure, whose rationale is to allow State authorities to facilitate the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to take measures to protect public safety and order and the rights and freedoms of others.13 Such a notification should be subject to a proportionality assessment, not unduly bureaucratic14 and be required a maximum of, for example, 48 hours prior to the day the assembly is planned to take place. A notification procedure is in force in several countries, including Armenia, Austria, Canada, Cote d‟Ivoire, Finland, Indonesia, Morocco, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Portugal, Senegal, Serbia, and the United Republic of Tanzania. Prior notification should ideally be required only for large meetings or meetings which may disrupt road traffic.15 In the Republic of Moldova, any assembly of fewer than 50 participants may take place without prior notification and the change from an authorization to a notification procedure fostered an increase in the number of individuals exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. In this context, the Special Rapporteur regrets that the law on demonstrations recently adopted by referendum in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, provides for a fine of up to 100,000 Swiss francs for 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 8 Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, p. 33. European Court of Human Rights, Ziliberberg v. Moldova, application No. 61821/00 (2004). Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, p. 13. See submission by the United Kingdom in addendum 1 to the present report. Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, p .63. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124 para. 57. See submission by the OSCE-ODIHR Panel of Experts in addendum 1 to the present report. Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, p. 63.