A/HRC/32/36/Add.2 case to protect against a specific risk or threat to the nation’s security, not just a general national interest or security concern. Those limitations must also consist of the least intrusive instrument to achieve the objective sought. 3 A. Freedom of peaceful assembly 1. Notification and peaceful assemblies 19. In line with the Constitution, the Assemblies and Demonstrations Act prohibits the authorities from requiring that peaceful assemblies be previously authorized. It does, however, require assembly organizers to submit a report notifying the authorities of the details of the proposed assembly in advance (art. 6 (1)). Notification regimes for assemblies may be permitted under international law (see A/HRC/20/27 para. 28), but such regimes, regardless of how they are labelled, may become de facto authorization requirements if notification is mandatory, particularly when they leave no room for spontaneous assemblies, which are also protected by international human rights law. In addition, notification regimes should not be burdensome or unduly bureaucratic (see para. 26 below). 20. Article 1 of the Act aims to guarantee “the freedom of lawful assemblies and demonstrations and [protect] citizens from unlawful demonstrations”. The notion of “lawfulness” was raised by many interlocutors. The Korean National Police Agency informed the Special Rapporteur that lawful assemblies are those that do not contravene the laws of the country, such as non-violent assemblies, and those that do not disrupt traffic. Assemblies that are not notified are unlawful, as are spontaneous assemblies. The police noted that a lawful assembly may turn into an unlawful assembly, for example when it is judged to have become violent. Assemblies deemed unlawful may be banned and/or forcefully dispersed, with participants facing possible investigation and prosecution. 21. Using national laws as the determinant for lawfulness in order to guarantee rights is problematic because it suggests that the right to peaceful assembly is granted by national law. Internationally recognized human rights are inherent lawful entitlements, requiring the authorities to take steps to respect and fulfil them. Their validity is not dependent on the discretion of lawmakers or of security agencies. 22. International human rights norms consider the “peacefulness” of an assembly as the defining characteristic for protection under article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The peacefulness of an assembly should be presumed and regard must be given to the intentions of the organizers and the manner in which the assembly is held (see A/HRC/31/66, para. 18). International law allows for dispersal of a peaceful assembly only in rare cases, i.e. when it incites discrimination, hostility or violence, in contravention of article 20 of the Covenant. 23. Further, designating an assembly as unlawful because of the violent actions of a few and subsequently dispersing it fails to take into account that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly belongs to individuals. The rights of peaceful participants cannot be restricted because others are violent (see A/HRC/31/66, para. 20). As has been acknowledged by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea, dispersal of an assembly is a measure of last resort because of its severe impact on the rights of peaceful participants. 4 3 4 6 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 27 (1999) on freedom of movement, para. 14. Case on the prohibition of assembly in the vicinity of diplomatic institutions [15-2 (B) KCCR 41, 2000Hun-Ba67, etc. (consolidated), October 30, 2003] para. 3 (C) (3).