A/HRC/12/41 page 12 40. Arbitrary restrictions on peaceful demonstrations continue to be imposed to the point that in the past two years the exercise of the right to free assembly has considerably declined. Under the 1991 Law on Demonstrations, local authorities can approve or reject requests for demonstrations. In practice, most requests have been turned down on various unspecified security grounds, especially if the protests were deemed critical of government policies or practices or organized by the opposition or independent civil society actors. Decisions have often been delayed until the eve of the planned demonstration, making it difficult to organize. Local authorities have sometimes referred decisions to the Ministry of Interior. On several occasions, in response to intercessions by OHCHR, the Ministry has reversed decisions by local authorities and allowed demonstrations to take place. 41. The long-awaited draft law on peaceful assembly is currently before the National Assembly. OHCHR has since 2006 provided detailed commentary on the draft to the Ministry of Interior, the Council of Ministers and the National Assembly. The draft was submitted to Parliament in early 2008, but, in a rare example of assertiveness, the Assembly requested certain revisions of the text to meet several concerns raised by civil society and OHCHR. The revised text shows some improvement, as, for example, personal liability for damage caused during a demonstration is limited to the offender and not the organizer. OHCHR met with the Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of the National Assembly to recommend further amendments to improve its consistency with international standards. These proposals include fair provision for spontaneous demonstrations, providing for judicial review of the decisions of the Ministry of Interior and clear definition of permissible restrictions on the right to avoid arbitrary restrictions in conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The adoption of a law containing essential safeguards will be an important indicator of the commitment of the Government to regulating the constitutional right to freedom of assembly in accordance with its obligations under the Covenant. 42. OHCHR has continued to monitor the proceedings in relation to the murders of three trade unionists. In September 2008, the investigating judge closed the investigation in the case of the assassination of trade unionist Hy Vuthy because the police had not produced sufficient evidence. OHCHR and ILO encouraged the police to continue the investigation, apparently with no result. In the case of the murder in 2004 of trade union leader Chea Vichea, the two men who had been imprisoned for five years continued to appeal their conviction. In an unprecedented move, publicly welcomed by OHCHR, the Supreme Court on 31 December 2008 requested the Appeal Court to review the evidence in the case and released them on bail. In the case of the murder of trade union leader Ros Sovannareth (2004) the Appeal Court upheld on 11 February 2009 the conviction of Thach Saveth despite poor evidence and serious procedural irregularities. 43. OHCHR did not receive a response to its repeated requests to seek official clarification concerning the legal status and rights of the Khmer Krom (Khmer born in southern Viet Nam). It understands that the policy recognizes all Khmer Krom as Khmer citizens and that they are thus entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. A number of them, however, who have been active in publicly protesting against alleged human rights violations against their brethren in southern Viet Nam or in advocating self-determination rights for them have been under close police surveillance and denied their right to identity documents. Tim Sakhorn, a Buddhist monk who has advocated Khmer Krom rights, was defrocked and sent to Viet Nam in 2007 where he was imprisoned for a year for “undermining the solidarity between Cambodia and Viet Nam”.