A/HRC/23/39 “democratic society” places the burden on States imposing restrictions to demonstrate that the limitations do not harm the principles of “pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness”.17 Associations, whether domestic- or foreign-funded, should therefore be free to promote their views – even minority and dissenting views, challenge governments about their human rights record or campaign for democratic reforms, without being accused of treason and other defamatory terms. Dissenting views should be seen by the authorities as an opportunity for dialogue and mutual understanding. The European Court of Human Rights in affirming this principle ruled that “an organisation may campaign for a change in the legal and constitutional structures of the State if the means used to that end are in every respect legal and democratic and if the change proposed is itself compatible with fundamental democratic principles.”18 33. In addition to the fact that justification on the grounds of State sovereignty violates international norms and standards related to freedom of association, the Special Rapporteur is extremely concerned about increased denigration and unfounded accusations against individuals and organizations receiving foreign funding. Special procedures mechanisms have expressed their particular dismay about cases of vicious verbal attacks, intimidation, property damage, physical assaults and even criminalization against activists accused of having ties to a foreign entity, on the sole ground that they had allegedly received foreign funding (e.g. Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan). Allowing or inciting public discredit on individuals’ or organizations’ honour and reputation or inciting nationalist and xenophobic sentiment is likely to cause associations to engage in self-censorship and, more gravely, to incite hatred and fuel further human rights violations. 34. Finally, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that in most cases, States which restrict or stigmatize foreign funding under the guise of preservation of sovereignty are also those which limit access to domestic funding or which subject associations to discriminatory treatment due to the thematic area they focus on. Where domestic funding is scarce or unduly restricted, it is critical for associations to be free to rely on foreign assistance in order to carry out their activities. The Special Rapporteur recalls again that “governments must allow access by NGOs to foreign funding as a part of international cooperation to which civil society is entitled, to the same extent as Governments”.19 He believes that States must demonstrate a change in mentality by highlighting that funding associations contribute to the development of a flourishing, diversified and independent civil society, which is characteristic of a dynamic democracy. 3. Transparency and accountability 35. Restrictions to funding are also regularly justified by the need to ensure greater transparency and accountability within the civil society sector. Combatting fraud, embezzlement, corruption, money-laundering and other modes of trafficking is legitimate, and may qualify as being in the “interests of national security, public safety, or public order”. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient to simply pursue a legitimate interest, limitations need also to be prescribed by law and “be necessary” in a democratic society. In this regard, limitations must be proportionate to the interest to be protected and must be the least intrusive means to achieve the desired objective. In this respect, several legislations or practices unduly restrict the ability of associations to access funding since other less intrusive measures exist to mitigate the risk. 17 18 19 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Handyside v. the United Kingdom, application No. 5493/72, judgement of 7 December 1976, para. 49. ECtHR, Zhechev v. Bulgaria, application No. 57045/00, judgement of 21 June 2007, para. 47. A/59/401, para. 82. 11