A/HRC/31/66 23. Failure to notify authorities of an assembly does not render an assembly unlawful, and consequently should not be used as a basis for dispersing the assembly. Where there has been a failure to properly notify, organizers, community or political leaders should not be subject to criminal or administrative sanctions resulting in fines or imprisonment (see A/HRC/20/27, para. 29). This applies equally in the case of spontaneous assemblies, where prior notice is otherwise impracticable or where no identifiable organizer exists. Spontaneous assemblies should be exempt from notification requirements, 13 and law enforcement authorities should, as far as possible, protect and facilitate spontaneous assemblies as they would any other assembly. 24. The State’s obligation to facilitate and protect assemblies includes simultaneous assemblies and counter-protests, in which one or more assemblies aim to express discontent with the message of other assemblies. Assemblies, including spontaneous assemblies and counter-protests, should, as far as possible, be facilitated to take place within sight and sound of their target.14 25. The State’s obligation to facilitate extends to taking measures to protect those exercising their rights from violence or interference.15 The mere existence of a risk, however, is insufficient for prohibiting an assembly. 16 Where the risk of violent clashes between participants within or between assemblies exists, the least restrictive measures must be taken to ensure the safety and security of participants and others. 26. While organizers should make reasonable efforts to comply with the law and to encourage peaceful conduct of an assembly, organizers should not be held responsible for the unlawful behaviour of others. 17 To do so would violate the principle of individual liability, weaken trust and cooperation between assembly organizers, participants and the authorities, and discourage potential assembly organizers from exercising their rights. 27. No person should be held criminally, civilly or administratively liable for the mere act of organizing or participating in a peaceful protest. 28. Practical recommendations: (a) States must ensure that any system of prior notification gives effect to the presumption in favour of assemblies, places narrow limits on the discretion of authorities to restrict assemblies, and incorporates a proportionality assessment; (b) States should not require organizers to obtain prior authorization to hold an assembly, in law or practice. Where a notification system is in place, it must facilitate peaceful assembly, and must not operate as a de facto requirement for prior authorization; (c) Notification systems must not be overly bureaucratic. Measures to simplify the notification process may include: multiple lodgement points, including outside of urban areas, and in-person and assisted lodgement; the use of forms that 13 14 15 16 17 European Court of Human Rights, Bukta v. Hungary, application No. 25691/04, 17 July 2007. However, where a counterdemonstration has been organized with the intention of interfering with the rights of others to lawfully assemble, the counterdemonstration will fall within the ambit of article 5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the protections afforded in respect of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly will not apply. See European Court of Human Rights, Ozgur Gundem v. Turkey, application No. 23144/93, 16 March 2000, paras. 42-43. See European Court of Human Rights, Alekseyev v. Russia, application Nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, 21 October 2010, para. 75. See A/HRC/20/27, para. 31, and A/HRC/23/39, para. 78. 7