A/HRC/23/39 public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. 41. The Special Rapporteur stresses that even if the restriction were to pursue a legitimate objective, it would not comply with the requirements of “a democratic society”. In particular, deliberate misinterpretations by Governments of ownership or harmonization principles to require associations to align themselves with Governments’ priorities contradict one of the most important aspects of freedom of association, namely that individuals can freely associate for any legal purpose. Hence, Governments which restrict funding in the name of aid effectiveness violate the key democratic principles of “pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness” and therefore unduly restrict freedom of association. 42. The Special Rapporteur wishes to highlight that there is an inherent contradiction in States restricting funding to associations, while at the same time receiving increased funding through international cooperation. He believes that instead of aiming to limit the participation of civil society actors, aid effectiveness rather aims to provide all relevant stakeholders, including associations, with greater influence to contribute to, inter alia, poverty reduction, strengthening of democratic reforms and human rights promotion. For example, in Busan, Republic of Korea, assurances were made to “implement fully respective commitments to enable CSOs to exercise their roles as independent development actors, with a particular focus on an enabling environment, consistent with agreed international rights, that maximizes the contributions of CSOs to development” (emphasis added). The independence of the civil society sector, including in terms of access to funding, should therefore be guaranteed. In the context of ongoing discussions related to the post-2015 Millennium Development Goals, the Special Rapporteur believes that civil society involvement and contributions to development are paramount, and that States should exert all efforts to support, rather than inhibit, their work. IV. Ability to hold peaceful assemblies: an integral component of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly A. Background 43. The ability to hold peaceful assemblies is a fundamental and integral component of the multifaceted right to freedom of peaceful assembly, which shall be enjoyed by everyone. Such ability is of utmost importance to the work of civil society actors, including those promoting the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, as it enables them to publicly voice their message, which ultimately benefits the realization of the right(s) they strive to promote and protect, especially in the context of the ongoing dire economic crisis. This is all the more relevant for groups most at risk of violations and discrimination, such as women, youth, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, persons belonging to minority groups, groups at risk because of their sexual orientation and gender identity and non-nationals. 44. However, in far too many instances, the ability to hold peaceful assemblies has been denied or restricted by authorities in violation of international human rights norms and standards. As a consequence, the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, as recognized in article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Affairs, has been narrowed. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur wishes to refer once again to the Human Rights Committee’s general comment No. 25 (1996) on participation in public affairs and the right to vote, which considers that “citizens also take part in the conduct of public affairs by exerting influence through public debate and dialogue with their 13