A/HRC/31/66 31. When a State invokes national security and protection of public order to restrict an assembly, it must prove the precise nature of the threat and the specific risks posed.22 It is not sufficient for the State to refer generally to the security situation. National, political or government interest is not synonymous with national security or public order. 32. Assemblies are an equally legitimate use of public space as commercial activity or the movement of vehicles and pedestrian traffic.23 Any use of public space requires some measure of coordination to protect different interests, but there are many legitimate ways in which individuals may use public spaces. A certain level of disruption to ordinary life caused by assemblies, including disruption of traffic, annoyance and even harm to commercial activities, must be tolerated if the right is not to be deprived of substance. 24 33. Participants in assemblies are free to choose and express the content of their message. Restrictions on the content of assemblies may be imposed only in conformity with the legitimate limitations on rights outlined above, for example, where the message advocates national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Where a content-based restriction is justified, authorities should take the least intrusive and restrictive measures to address the issue. 34. “Time, place and manner” restrictions refer to prior restrictions regarding when, where and how an assembly may be conducted. Such restrictions should never be used to undermine the message or expressive value of an assembly or to dissuade the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly. 35. The onus of justifying a limitation rests with the authority. If any restriction is imposed there should be an option for organizers to seek judicial review and, where relevant, administrative review, that is prompt, competent, independent and impartial. 25 36. Practical recommendations: (a) Laws governing State conduct in relation to assemblies should be drafted unambiguously and should incorporate legality, necessity and proportionality tests. Laws should state clearly the body with authority and responsibility for receiving and responding to notifications, which should be independent of undue interference. This body should not be granted excessive discretion: the criteria upon which it can impose restrictions should be publicly available and must accord with international human rights law and standards; (b) Proposed restrictions should be put in writing, justified and communicated to the organizers, including the justification for the restriction, allowing an opportunity for the organizers to make submissions and to respond to any proposed restriction; (c) Proposed restrictions should be communicated in a time frame prescribed by law, allowing sufficient time for an appeal — or urgent interim relief — to be completed before the proposed time of the assembly; 22 23 24 25 See Human Rights Committee, communication No. 1119/2002, Lee v. the Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 20 July 2005, para. 7.3. See A/HRC/20/27, para. 41, and ODIHR/OSCE Guidelines, para. 20. European Court of Human Rights, Kuznetsov v. Russia, application No. 10877/04, 23 October 2008, para. 44, and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, para. 197. Human Rights Council resolution 25/38; see also A/HRC/20/27, para. 42. 9