A/HRC/32/36/Add.1 II. Right to freedom of peaceful assembly A. General legal framework 15. The Constitution of Chile guarantees the “right to assemble peacefully without prior permission and unarmed” and provides that “meetings in squares, streets and other public places shall be governed by general police regulations”.2 16. Supreme Decree No. 1086, adopted in 1983, regulates the exercise of this right. Under this decree, the organizers of any meeting or demonstration must notify either the regional intendant (Intendente) or the provincial governor (Gobernador) at least two days in advance. If organizers fail to do so, law enforcement officers may prevent or dissolve the planned meeting or demonstration (art. 2). Furthermore, the regional intendant or provincial governor has large discretion whether or not to authorize meetings or processions in highdensity roads or streets where they may disrupt public transit, or in squares and leisure roads during recreational or rest hours, and in parks, squares, gardens and green avenues (art. 2). 17. The Special Rapporteur considers this regulatory framework to be a de facto authorization regime, which not only contradicts the Constitution of Chile, but is also incompatible with international law and best practices governing freedom of peaceful assembly. Fundamentally, requiring authorization — even when couched as notification — turns the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly into a privilege. 18. Best practice dictates that States may, at most, require prior notification for peaceful assemblies, but not authorization.3 The purpose of prior notification is to allow authorities to facilitate the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to take measures to protect protesters, public safety, order and the rights and freedoms of others. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that assemblies, by their nature, can cause a certain degree of disruption to the normal routine of daily life. However, these constitute only a temporary interference with the rights and activities of others and therefore should be tolerated. 19. In this regard, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has stressed that, “such disruptions are part of the mechanics of a pluralistic society in which diverse and sometimes conflicting interests coexist and find the forums and channels in which to express themselves”.4 It also stressed that “the competent institutions of the State have a duty to design operating plans and procedures that will facilitate the exercise of the right of assembly, [including] rerouting pedestrian and vehicular traffic in a certain area”.5 20. Furthermore, under the current regulatory regime, spontaneous assemblies are de facto prohibited. Spontaneous assemblies, where prior notice is impracticable or where no identifiable organizer exists, should be exempt from notification requirements. 21. In general, failure to notify the authorities of an assembly does not render an assembly unlawful, and consequently should not be used as a basis for dispersing the assembly. Where there has been a failure to properly notify the authorities, organizers, 2 3 4 5 See the Constitution of Chile, art. 19 (13) (emphasis added). See A/HRC/20/27, para. 28. See Organization of American States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, “Report on citizen security and human rights”, 31 December 2009 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II), para. 198. Available from www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Seguridad.eng/CitizenSecurity.Toc.htm. Ibid., para. 193. 5