A/HRC/17/28* D. Domestic application of international norms in protecting the right to life when policing assemblies 75. There is no quick, single answer to the question of how to handle public protest. Differences in the type and size of crowds, causes and social settings pose a diverse range of challenges. Societies vary in terms of their propensity to violence, and approach to solving disputes. The need to strike a balance between the legitimate interests of protesters and the broader society in the unique context of each situation makes a one-size-fits-all approach to protest impossible and undesirable. 76. Nevertheless, much is to be gained from studying the way in which different national legal regimes regulate protest, and looking at good and bad practices around the world. 77. As to whether assembly and protest rights are adequately secured in practice depends on how much political room there is for dissent in the country in question. Are the laws applied in an even-handed manner, if at all? 39 While noting the often overriding prominence of political and practical considerations, this report focuses primarily on protection by law. 78. In some legal systems, the applicable laws predate the establishment of the United Nations and have remained unchanged for decades. The laws on demonstrations in Egypt, for example, date from 1914 and 1923, and in two other countries studied for this report, from 1857 and 1897 respectively. 79. The legislation of some 76 countries (to the extent that it was publicly available) was considered for the purpose of this report. Difficulties were experienced in obtaining a comprehensive picture in respect of some countries; for example, in the case of federal States, in situations where a number of different laws deal with the use of force, and where not all laws are written. Nevertheless, an indication of the kind of provisions that are in place at the domestic level were be garnered from this sample. 80. The constitutions of most countries recognise the right to life and peaceful assembly. However, the constitutions of Bahrain, Brunei, China, Comoros, Cuba, Egypt, Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates and Yemen do not expressly recognise the right to life, and the constitutions of Brunei, Djibouti, Gabon, Qatar and Yemen do not recognise the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. 81. Certain rights may be suspended during states of emergency under national constitutions. While the right to life may not be suspended under international law, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly may be suspended, and most, but not all, constitutions also provide for derogation from this right. 82. Around one third of the 76 countries considered have specialised legislation in place on demonstrations. In other countries, demonstrations are regulated together with other public order issues or in the countries’ penal codes. Some countries recognise a positive duty to facilitate demonstrations. In two countries studied, it is a criminal offence for a police officer not to disperse an illegal gathering. 83. Domestic legal systems can be used in many ways to suppress political freedom and dissidents, and at the same time, minimise the room available for assembly, often not explicitly. This can be done through security laws (including anti-terrorism laws), but also 39 14 One issues of relevance here is police oversight mechanisms; see, in this regard, A/HRC/14/24/Add. 8, paras. 8-14.