A/HRC/31/66 58. The proportionality requirement sets a ceiling on the use of force based on the threat posed by the person targeted. This is a value judgement that balances harm and benefit, demanding that the harm that might result from the use of force is proportionate and justifiable in relation to the expected benefit. 59. The principles of necessity and proportionality apply to the use of all force, including potentially lethal force. Specific rules apply to the use of firearms for law enforcement, also during assemblies. 44 Firearms may be used only against an imminent threat either to protect life or to prevent life-threatening injuries (making the use of force proportionate). In addition, there must be no other feasible option, such as capture or the use of non-lethal force to address the threat to life (making the force necessary). 60. Firearms should never be used simply to disperse an assembly; indiscriminate firing into a crowd is always unlawful (see A/HRC/26/36, para. 75). Intentional lethal use of force is only lawful where it is strictly unavoidable to protect another life from an imminent threat; this is sometimes referred to as the protect life principle (ibid., para. 70). 61. Dispersing an assembly carries the risk of violating the rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly as well as the right to bodily integrity. Dispersing an assembly also risks escalating tensions between participants and law enforcement. For these reasons, it must be resorted to only when strictly unavoidable. For example, dispersal may be considered where violence is serious and widespread and represents an imminent threat to bodily safety or property, and where law enforcement officials have taken all reasonable measures to facilitate the assembly and protect participants from harm. Before countenancing dispersal, law enforcement agencies should seek to identify and isolate any violent individuals separately from the main assembly and differentiate between violent individuals in an assembly and others. This may allow the assembly to continue. 62. International law allows for dispersal of a peaceful assembly only in rare cases. For example, a peaceful assembly that incites discrimination, hostility or violence, in contravention of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, may warrant dispersal if less intrusive and discriminatory means of managing the situation have failed. Similarly, while mere inconvenience to others,45 or temporary disruption of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, are to be tolerated, where an assembly prevents access to essential services, such as blocking the emergency entrance to a hospital, or where interference with traffic or the economy is serious and sustained, for example, where a major highway is blocked for days, dispersal may be justified. Failure to notify authorities of an assembly is not a basis for dispersal. 63. Only governmental authorities or high-ranking officers with sufficient and accurate information of the situation unfolding on the ground should have the authority to order dispersal. If dispersal is deemed necessary, the assembly and participants should be clearly and audibly informed, and should also be given reasonable time to disperse voluntarily. 46 Only if participants then fail to disperse may law enforcement officials intervene further. 64. As part of their responsibility to ensure accountability, States must establish effective reporting and review procedures to address any incident in relation to an assembly during which a potentially unlawful use of force occurs. 47 65. A clear and transparent command structure must be established to minimize the risk of violence or the use of force, and to ensure responsibility for unlawful acts or omissions 44 45 46 47 14 Principle 9 of the Basic Principles. See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Citizen Security, para. 198. See OSCE/ODIHR, Guidelines, para. 168. Principle 22 of the Basic Principles, and article 8, with commentary, of the Code of Conduct.