A/HRC/41/41 peaceful assembly and of association are often seamlessly exercised online and offline. For example, many associations have offices and people meet face-to-face. At the same time, they use digital technology to carry out daily activities and as a space to convene online discussions and assemblies. Similarly, associations primarily based online can also hold inperson discussions and assemblies. The extent of the online and offline activities depends on the association’s membership, strategies and goals. Simply stated, international law protects the rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, whether exercised in person, or through the technologies of today, or through technologies that will be invented in the future.34 B. Trends in State restrictions 29. The Special Rapporteur is concerned about the variety of measures and tactics that are used by States to control and impede access to and use of digital technology for the exercise of the rights to freedom of assembly and of association. Laws that criminalize online content continue to proliferate, leading to a significant chilling effect on advocacy and mobilization. Numerous jurisdictions have resorted to shutting down access to communications networks and services during elections and public demonstrations, and blocking websites belonging to civil society groups, including human rights organizations. Demonstrating a sophisticated grasp of emerging technical tools, some States – and malicious third-party actors – have increased use of digital surveillance and online harassment against civil society actors, human rights defenders, opposition political leaders and those who plan to stage peaceful public assemblies. All of this has significantly reduced the space in which people can defend and promote shared interests. Notably, the Human Rights Council has expressed concern about “the emerging trend of disinformation and of undue restrictions preventing Internet users from having access to or disseminating information at key political moments, with an impact on the ability to organize and conduct assemblies”.35 30. This section examines these State actions to determine whether they are compliant with articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant and with the relevant analytical tests set forth in those articles. 1. Legality 31. As already noted, any restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of association must have a legal basis (i.e. be “in conformity with law” or “prescribed by law”, respectively),36 as must the mandate and powers of the restricting authority. 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 to foresee the likely consequences of any such breach.37 32. Laws criminalizing access to and use of digital tools are increasingly being adopted, in a diverse range of countries. These laws establish criminal liability in often vague and illdefined terms, allowing for arbitrary or discretionary application and resulting in legal uncertainty. As such, they fail to meet the legal standards for permissible restrictions under articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant. Examples include cybercrime laws, antiterrorism laws, surveillance laws, and laws against protests. 34 35 36 37 8 Douglas Rutzen and Jacob Zenn, “Assembly and association in the digital age”, International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, vol. 13, issue 4 (December 2011), p. 67. See Human Rights Council resolution 38/11. Article 21 of the Covenant provides that no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly other than those imposed in conformity with the law. Article 22 (2) provides that “no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law”. A/HRC/20/27, para. 16; and A/HRC/31/66, para. 30.