A/HRC/23/39 55. The Special Rapporteur further echoes the views of the Panel of Experts that the authorities should be flexible in cases of (a) late notification, if there is a good reason; (b) incorrect completion of form; or (c) failure to provide all necessary information. The notification timeline should not restart from the beginning and there should be some flexible means of correcting minor omissions or errors.29 56. Another inappropriate requirement attached to the notification process is informally or formally imposing on the organizers the expectation to negotiate the time and place of the assembly with the authorities. Such requirement would be tantamount to restricting the planned assembly and would need to pass the strict test of necessity and proportionality, as defined in article 21 of the Covenant, which is applicable to restrictions. The Special Rapporteur also warns against authorities proposing an alternative time and place for an assembly, when processing a notification, as this would also be imposing restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and should satisfy the aforementioned test. 57. The Special Rapporteur is also of the opinion that the notification procedure should at all times be free of charge so as not to financially deter organizers from exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. Similarly, the cost of protecting and facilitating the assembly (such as deploying security barriers, medical services or temporary sanitary facilities) should not be borne by the organizers. 58. Once the organizers have notified the designated primary authority of their intention to hold an assembly, a receipt acknowledging that timely notification has been submitted should be provided in an expeditious manner. Should the organizers not hear from the authority prior to the designated time for holding the assembly, it should be assumed that said assembly does not present any problem. The Special Rapporteur warns against any possible abuse of the receipt system.30 59. The Special Rapporteur is mindful of States’ obligation to guarantee law and order, but restrictions on peaceful assembly in relation to its “time, place and manner”31 should be limited to the extent that such restrictions meet the aforementioned strict test of necessity and proportionality. Any restriction imposed on the nature or content of the message the organizers and participants want to convey, especially in relation to criticism of Government policies, should be proscribed, unless the message constitutes “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, in conformity with article 20 of the Covenant. In this connection, he stresses the recommendation that he has already put forward to States to “provide individuals exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association with the protection offered by the right to freedom of expression”. 32 60. Should the assembly be restricted in compliance with international human rights norms and standards, the authorities should provide reasonable alternatives to the organizers to hold peaceful assemblies, which fundamentally should always be facilitated within “sight and sound” of the target audience so that the message they (organizers and participants) want to convey reaches this target audience.33 61. In far too many instances, authorities in many countries fail to apply the aforementioned strict test of necessity and proportionality when reviewing the imposition of a possible restriction to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. Peaceful assemblies 29 30 31 32 33 16 Based on consultation with members of the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts. See CCPR/CO/82/MAR, para. 24. OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, para. 99. A/HRC/20/27, para. 84 (g). OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, para. 99 and 101.