A/HRC/23/39 have been prohibited or repressed because the message conveyed do not please the authorities, as has been done in Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, China, Cuba, Egypt, the Iran (Islamic Republic of), Indonesia, Russian Federation, Syrian Arab Republic and Zimbabwe. Organizers and participants have been charged with, inter alia, “sedition” and “rioting”. 62. This has also been the case for peaceful protestors advocating economic, social and cultural rights, such as indigenous peoples protesting the exploitation of a coal mine (Bangladesh), local residents denouncing the health impact of nuclear power plants (India), students protesting university reforms (Chile), employees protesting the closure of a mine (Myanmar), activists criticizing the increase in fuel prices (Sri Lanka) or students supporting an ethnic group forcibly displaced by the construction of a dam (Sudan). 63. The Special Rapporteur is particularly troubled by the imposition of blanket bans in many States, such as Azerbaijan and Bahrain, typically in the interests of national security, public safety or public order. He firmly believes that such blanket bans, are intrinsically disproportionate and discriminatory measures as they impact on all citizens willing to exercise their right to freedom of peacefully assembly. States have also resorted to preemptive measures to quash peaceful assemblies, including by preventing participants from reaching assembly points, as in Sri Lanka and Myanmar. 64. Finally, organizers should be given the possibility of an expedited appeal procedure, with a view to obtaining a judicial decision by an independent and impartial court prior to the notified date of the assembly. The decision of the regulatory authority and of the appeal court should be published for the purposes of transparency and fairness, possibly on a specific website.34 3. Access to public space 65. A key measure with regard to facilitating the holding of peaceful assemblies is to make public space available for organizers and participants. The Special Rapporteur deems it useful to refer again to an important decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court which stated that “in a democratic society, the urban space is not only an area for circulation, but also for participation”. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) also stressed that although the exercise of the right of assembly can sometimes be disruptive to the normal routine of daily life, or may even cause problems or affect the exercise of other rights that the State has an obligation to protect and ensure, such as freedom of movement, “such disruptions are part of the mechanics of a pluralistic society in which diverse and sometimes conflicting interests coexist and find the forums and channels in which to express themselves”.35 Furthermore, the Human Rights Council in its resolution 22/10 urged States to facilitate peaceful protests by providing protestors with access to public space and protecting them, where necessary, against any forms of threats, and underlined the role of local authorities in this regard.36 The issue of access to public space is all the more important in light of the increased privatization of public space in many States, where peaceful assemblies have been curtailed through the use by private bodies, both companies and individuals, of civil injunctions, which can be difficult to challenge, coupled with the issue of aggravated trespass, as in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for example. 34 35 36 Based on consultation with members of the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts. Organization of American States (OAS), IACHR, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, 31 December 2009 (OEA/Ser.L/V/II), para. 198. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Seguridad.eng/CitizenSecurity.Toc.htm Human Rights Council resolution 22/10, para. 4. 17