A/HRC/23/39 of the goals they pursue. In the light of this reasoning, and taking due consideration of the provisions of the Covenant, which make no distinction between registered and unregistered associations, the Special Rapporteur underlines that legislation limiting foreign funding to registered associations only, as is the case in existing and draft legislation in Bangladesh, violate international human rights norms and standards pertaining to freedom of association. Furthermore, he recalls that the formation of associations should not be subject to a prior authorization procedure, but rather regulated by a system of notification that is simple, easily accessible, non-discriminatory and non-onerous or free of charge. 6 18. Despite these clear legal obligations that not only call upon States to avoid placing restrictions, but also to facilitate access to funding, civil society actors are in too many instances subject to regulations put in place to control, rather than enable access to funding. The Special Rapporteur underlines that freedom of association may be subject to certain restrictions only, which need to meet the provisions of article 22, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. He underscores again that freedom should be the rule, and restrictions the exception.7 He also underlines that one of the key principles of freedom of association is the presumption that the activities of associations are lawful. C. Meeting international human rights norms and standards 19. The Special Rapporteur notes with concern laws and practices that constrain civil society organizations from seeking, receiving or utilizing foreign funding. As will be detailed in the following section of the report, most of the justifications put forward by States to restrict foreign funding do not comply with article 22, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, which states that “no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of [the right to freedom of association] other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” As will be repeatedly emphasized in this section, the conditions for any restriction are cumulative, that is, motivated by one of the above limited interests, have a legal basis and “necessary in a democratic society”. 20. Under international law, problematic constraints include, inter alia, outright prohibitions to access funding; requiring CSOs to obtain Government approval prior to receiving funding; requiring the transfer of funds to a centralized Government fund; banning or restricting foreign-funded CSOs from engaging in human rights or advocacy activities; stigmatizing or delegitimizing the work of foreign-funded CSOs by requiring them to be labeled as “foreign agents” or other pejorative terms; initiating audit or inspection campaigns to harass CSOs; and imposing criminal penalties on CSOs for failure to comply with the foregoing constraints on funding. The ability of CSOs to access funding and other resources from domestic, foreign and international sources is an integral part of the right to freedom of association, and these constraints violate article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 21. The Special Rapporteur also warns that the political environment, where for instance patriarchy, sexism and authoritarian regimes are structural challenges, can also unduly undermine access to funding to civil society. 8 Furthermore, criminalization in certain countries of peaceful activities, such as protection of human rights, non-discrimination and 6 7 8 A/HRC/20/27, paras. 58-59, 95. Ibid., para. 16. A/66/203, para. 73. 7