A/HRC/44/24 which also sets out applicable normative standards and principles5 and, at the regional level, various guidelines on the application of the right of peaceful assembly. 6 6. The right of peaceful assembly is not absolute, however, as it can be limited under strict conditions.7 When limiting the right, States should always be guided by the principle that the restrictions must not impair the essence of the right. 8 Furthermore, restrictions may be imposed only if they are prescribed by law and proportionate in the circumstances. States must show that the restrictions were necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Finally, States must also protect participants against possible abuses by non-State actors, such as interference or violence by other members of the public or counter-demonstrators. III. New technologies as enablers for the exercise of human rights in the context of peaceful protests 7. New technologies, in particular ICT, have a positive, transformative potential. These technologies enable people to exercise the right of peaceful assembly and related rights through their use: in mobilizing for and organizing peaceful protests; in forming networks and coalitions; and in becoming better informed about assemblies and the reasons behind them, thus driving social change. New technologies may also be useful in increasing transparency and accountability for violations and abuses that may occur during protests. 8. Individuals use ICT to organize assemblies, as it provides a relatively easy and accessible means of communicating quickly and efficiently, spreading messages to a large audience at a low financial cost. 9 In some instances, social media networks are used to facilitate the coordination of assemblies.10 The speed with which information travels via new technologies supports the arrangement of spontaneous demonstrations. Messaging and social networking platforms that use encryption technology to prevent monitoring enhance the security of civil society groups’ digital communication, while also providing tools specifically geared to network organizing at the grass-roots level.11 To protect the safety of communications, some messaging platforms have adopted the use of end-to-end encryption. Other examples are smartphone applications that have been developed to help move the protests to key geographic areas in order to maximize their impact, and the creation of automated chatbots by civil society to provide legal aid to protesters facing arrest. 12 9. States also use ICT to facilitate the management of assemblies. For example, the guidelines on demonstrations developed by the municipality of Amsterdam advise local authorities to consult social media before a demonstration to help estimate the number of potential participants and to use social media to communicate with demonstrators. Other authorities use social media to coordinate efforts and exchange information with organizers, in particular during large-scale assemblies.13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 General Assembly resolution 53/144, annex; see, in particular, arts. 6 and 12. See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa (2017), and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd ed. (Warsaw, OSCE, 2010). CCPR/C/120/D/2142/2012; CCPR/C/117/D/2082/2011; and CCPR/C/117/D/2089/2011. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 27 (1999) on freedom of movement. Contributions of Mauritius, the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, the National Human Rights Commission of Mexico, the Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, the Amman Center for Human Rights Studies, the Human Rights House Foundation and the Digital Rights Foundation. Contributions of Guyana, Italy and the South African Human Rights Commission. A/HRC/41/41, para. 26. Contribution of the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law. Contributions of Romania and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of OSCE. 3