A/HRC/23/39 on the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of expression, as in the legislations of Azerbaijan, Russian Federation and (Canton of Geneva) Switzerland. 78. Furthermore, as stated previously, organizers of peaceful assemblies should never be held liable for the unlawful behaviour of others. 42 The principle of individual liability of participants should be upheld, notably due to the presumption of peacefulness of the assembly. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that organizers have sometimes been brought to court for the violent behaviour of others, as in Malaysia. He is similarly concerned about legal provisions criminalizing organizers for the violent conduct of others, as in the Canton of Geneva, Switzerland.43 V. Conclusion and recommendations 79. The Special Rapporteur considers the two issues discussed in the present report to be critical for the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. He expresses serious concern that undue barriers to funding are put in place, especially in a climate of harassment and exclusion of civil society actors on one hand, and in the context of a global financial crisis on the other. It is crucial that civil society not bear any more restrictions and obligations than private corporate bodies, for instance, in these areas. In a framework of ongoing democratic reforms in several countries across the world and of discussions related to the post-2015 Millennium Development Goals Agenda, he believes States have the obligation to facilitate, not restrict, access for associations to funding, including from foreign sources, so that they can effectively take part in the democratic process and enrich post-Millennium Development Goals talks, and ultimately contribute to development. 80. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur believes that the “Arab Spring”, and the “occupy movement” which subsequently flourished in many parts of the world, have opened a door which will never be closed. They provide a non-violent alternative for change as well as give authorities a chance to understand the views and feelings of citizens. These events indelibly confirmed that holding peaceful assemblies is a legitimate and powerful means to make calls for democratic change; greater respect for human rights, including economic, social and cultural ones; and accountability for human rights violations and abuses. The ability to hold such assemblies has proven particularly crucial for groups most at risk of violations and discrimination enabling them to address their often desperate plight in a meaningful manner. 81. As general recommendations, the Special Rapporteur calls upon States: (a) To create and maintain, in law and in practice, an enabling environment for the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of association and of peaceful assembly; (b) To ensure that any restriction complies with international human rights norms and standards, in particular in line with the strict test of necessity and proportionality in a democratic society, bearing in mind the principle of nondiscrimination; (c) To ensure that a detailed and timely written explanation for the imposition of any restriction is provided, and that said restriction can be subject to an independent, impartial and prompt judicial review; 42 43 20 A/HRC/20/27, para. 31. As of April 2013, the law is still the subject of an appeal before the Swiss Federal Tribunal.