A/HRC/31/66 are easily accessible, concise and available in a variety of languages. Where Internet penetration is high, authorities should consider using online lodgement systems; (d) Any notice period must be as short as possible, while still allowing the authorities sufficient time to prepare for the assembly — a maximum of several days, ideally within 48 hours; (e) Notification should be deemed to have been completed when a notice providing sufficient information for the authority to reasonably determine the date, time and location of the assembly and, when relevant, contact details of the organizer, has been received. A response from the authority is not required to complete notification or for the assembly to proceed; (f) Where notification is submitted for two or more assemblies for the same place and time, the authorities should conduct a thorough assessment of any risks and develop strategies for their mitigation. Where it becomes necessary to impose restrictions on one or more simultaneous assemblies, those restrictions should be determined through mutual agreement or, where this is not possible, through a process that does not discriminate between the proposed assemblies. C. Any restrictions imposed on peaceful assemblies shall comply with international human rights standards 29. Freedom of peaceful assembly is a fundamental right, and should be enjoyed without restriction to the greatest extent possible. Only those restrictions which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and are lawful, necessary, and proportionate to the aim pursued, may be applied. Any restrictions are to be the exception rather than the norm, and must not impair the essence of the right.18 30. To satisfy the requirement of lawfulness, any restrictions imposed must have a legitimate and formal basis in law (the legality principle), as must the mandate and powers of the restricting authority. 19 The law itself must be sufficiently precise to enable an individual to assess whether or not his or her conduct would be in breach of the law, and also foresee the likely consequences of any such breach. 20 To conform to the principle of proportionality, any restriction must be appropriate to achieve its protective function. To meet the necessity requirement it must also be the least intrusive instrument among those which might achieve the desired result.21 It must be narrowly tailored to the specific aims and concerns of the authorities, and take into account an analysis of the full range of rights involved in the proposed assembly. In determining the least intrusive instrument to achieve the desired result, authorities should consider a range of measures, with prohibition a last resort. To this end, blanket bans, including bans on the exercise of the right entirely or on any exercise of the right in specific places or at particular times, are intrinsically disproportionate, because they preclude consideration of the specific circumstances of each proposed assembly (see A/HRC/23/39, para. 63). 18 19 20 21 8 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 27 (1999) on freedom of movement, para. 13. See OSCE/ODIHR, Guidelines, para. 35, and European Court of Human Rights, Hyde Park and others v. Moldova, application No. 33482/06, 31 March 2009. See European Court of Human Rights, Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom, application No. 25594/94, 25 November 1999, para. 31, and Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, application No. 4158/05, 12 January 2010, para. 76. See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 27, para. 14.