A/HRC/22/28 be protected under either domestic or international human rights law, the Centre advocates that punishment for such acts should be proportionate, and that protestors should not be held up as examples. 52. The Spanish Fundación Intervida emphasized that persons under 18 years of age must receive particular protection against violence and inhuman or degrading treatment in the context of peaceful demonstrations. 53. The Defending Dissent Foundation considers that the role of the police at peaceful protests should be crowd management and that communication and voluntary compliance should be emphasized. All law enforcement personnel should wear or display visible identification and plainclothes or undercover officers or informants should not be placed in a crowd. The police presence should not be disproportionate to the size of the crowd, and the police should not be armed with lethal weapons. Horses should not be used for crowd control, the police should not photograph or videotape peaceful protestors, and should be prohibited from making pre-emptive arrests and dispersals. Moreover, law enforcement officers should document all arrests and promptly process them; arrested persons should be made aware of their legal rights. It advocated that tear gas, pepper spray or other “less than lethal” weapons should not be used on peaceful demonstrators. 54. The Ombudsman of Panama highlighted the importance of dialogue and consultation with all parties involved, which contribute to the protection of human rights during peaceful protests. Oman also emphasized the importance of communication with public authorities during protests. 55. Various NGOs also raised concerns about the misuse of less-than-lethal weapons. Specific concerns were raised by Physicians for Human Rights and the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law with respect to certain forms of non-lethal weapons used to control demonstrations, including guns with rubber bullets, tear gas, birdshot and taser guns. Physicians for Human Rights recommended that States ensure access to medical care for any injured protestor or security officer, and protect the medical neutrality of health-care professionals who treat injured protestors or security officers. 56. The Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) addressed the police tactic of containment, or “kettling,” of persons, including both protestors and bystanders, for a period of several hours, as a crowd-containment measure. The European Court of Human Rights found that the use of such containment measures was not a violation of the Convention when it is necessary to avert “a real risk of serious injury or damage,” and where it is the “least intrusive and most effective means to be applied.”25 While accepting that the police tactic of containment is legal in situations where there is a risk of serious violence, Netpol acknowledged that the practice is frequently used as a response to spontaneous and unauthorized peaceful protests, and expressed concern that the practice is not used only for the narrow purposes for which it is intended. Netpol further alleged that police tactics such as containment and stop-and-search are frequently used by police to collect personal data on protestors. It argued that the gathering and processing of such data does not have an adequate foundation in law and that it has a chilling effect on participation in protest activities. 57. The Danish Institute for Human Rights raised the issue of the treatment of large numbers of persons provisionally detained during protest activities in Denmark, highlighting one case in which the detainees did not have access to toilet facilities and were left on the cold pavement for several hours. 25 EctHR (Grand Chamber), Austin and others v. United Kingdom, Applications Nos. 39692/09, 40713/09, and 41008/09, judgement of 15 March 2012, paras. 59 and 66. 13