A/HRC/32/36/Add.3 Observations Responses to communications 154. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Brazil for the reply to his communication sent on 28 October 2015. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Brazil has yet not replied to the communication BRA 2/2015 and urges the authorities to provide a detailed response to the questions raised in this letter, in conformity with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010). 155. The Special Rapporteur takes note of the steps undertaken by the authorities to implement measures against terrorism. According to the Brazilian Government, the recent legislation is only a continuation of its previous policy and is applied legitimately according to international standards and has therefore no link with the World Cup in 2014, as well as the upcoming 2016 Olympic Games. 156. However, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned at the possible misuse of antiterrorism legislation to curb freedoms of peaceful assembly and association in the country. Although the Special Rapporteur is aware that States have an interest in protecting national security or public safety, and the fight against terrorism which are legitimate grounds for restricting freedom of association, he calls on the Government of Brazil to ensure that any restrictions on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are prescribed by law, which is necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate to the objective pursued, and do not harm the principles of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. Therefore, any restrictions should be subject to an independent, impartial, and prompt judicial review (A/HRC/20/27, paragraph 84 (d) and (e)). 157. On different occasions, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has stressed in a report to the General Assembly that “States should not need to resort to derogation measures in the area of freedom of assembly and association. Instead, limitation measures, as provided for in ICCPR, are sufficient in an effective fight against terrorism” (A/61/267, para. 53). 158. Moreover, he reaffirms that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are necessary elements for the possible emergence and sustainability of effective democratic systems. In this regard, States should therefore make every effort to facilitate those rights. Canada 159. JAL 27/04/2015. Case no. CAN 1/2015. State reply: 28 April 2015. Allegations concerning the compatibility of Bill C-51, an “Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts”, with international norms and standards on human rights. 160. JAL 29/06/2015. Case no. CAN 2/2015. State reply: 29/06/2015. Allegations of protracted undue interference in the form of intrusive audits and threat of revocation of charitable status for registered charities. 27