A/HRC/17/28* by means of vague and open-ended crimes such peligrosidad (dangerousness) and moharebeh (enmity against God). In some instances, organisations engaged in protest are banned in violation of the right to freedom of association. 84. Many countries follow international standards in respect of limitations on demonstrations, through laws targeting legitimate objectives such as national security, public order, and protection of the rights of others. In a number of countries, assemblies promoting hate speech and the use of violence are prohibited. 85. However, in a troubling number of instances, the police are given explicit, unfettered discretion to prohibit demonstrations. The relevant laws define reasons why this could be done, but the terms used are vague and open-ended, allowing for almost any restriction. For example, in one country, demonstrators are not allowed to “publish rumours and baseless propaganda that would create shock and horror in society,” while in another country, citizens cannot hold gatherings that “further the economic, political and social objectives of other countries or their citizens”. 86. Procedures for recourse to an independent court exist in a number of countries for those who feel aggrieved by limitations on planned protest actions, but not in the majority. Courts, including a significant number in Africa, have found open-ended or overly broad powers of functionaries to prohibit demonstrations to be unconstitutional. 87. In some countries, non-citizens are prohibited from participating in demonstrations. Notification and permits 88. No notification or permission to hold demonstrations is required in some countries. However, in most countries, notification of planned gatherings must either be given or permits obtained, although it is often not clear that there is an assumption that permits will be granted. Restrictions on place, time and manner 89. The State has wide discretion to impose content-neutral restrictions on demonstrations in order to minimise any disruptive effect, keeping in mind the importance of assemblies being held within “sight and sound” of the target audience. 90. In almost all the countries studied, there are restrictions on protests in the immediate vicinity of courts and parliament. Other places where protests are or may be prohibited include the area around the President’s residence, hotels where State guests are staying, and railway stations. Use of lethal force by police 91. The majority of countries studied have one set of rules regarding the use of force by police in the given country that are applicable across board – for defence, arrest and demonstration dispersal. 92. In a smaller, but still significant number of countries, there is a special regime applicable specifically to use of force during protest gatherings. In most of these countries, the police have greater powers to use lethal force during demonstrations than otherwise. The legal regimes applicable in thesee countries will be considered first. 93. The test in countries with a special regime applicable during protest action is mostly whether the use of force is “reasonable” or “necessary,” without further limitations. It is a matter of concern that such provisions could be interpreted to constitute a subjective test, leaving it to the discretion of individual police officers to decide whether to shoot to kill. This can be taken as a licence to kill. 15