A/HRC/44/50 individuals and groups could fully exercise their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. The following paragraphs highlight a few illustrative examples. 35. In 2014, the mandate holder launched an initiative aimed at protecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association by means of litigation in national and regional courts. The project focused on providing technical assistance and advisory services for public interest litigation on assembly and association issues, with a view to increasing and strengthening such litigation. Since then, the mandate holders have submitted 10 amicus briefs in relevant cases.32 For instance, in one such case the mandate holder filed an amicus brief before the High Court of South Africa arguing that the notification provisions of the country’s Regulation of Gatherings Act constituted “illegitimate” restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.33 Relevant provisions of the Act were later struck down as unconstitutional, and the Court found that the notification requirement created a chilling effect on freedom of expression and on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The Court made extensive reference to international court decisions and authorities cited in the Special Rapporteur’s amicus brief. Likewise, the mandate holder filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court of Mexico, arguing that three provisions of Mexico City’s Mobility Law imposed impermissible restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. 34 The Court not only upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provisions but made special reference to the Special Rapporteur’s brief in elaborating its standards on how the laws should be interpreted so as not to cause harm to human rights. 36. As of May 2020, the mandate holders have conducted 13 country visits. The list includes countries as diverse as Armenia, Chile, Georgia, Oman, the Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, the United States of America and Zimbabwe. 35 For each visit, the mandate holder presented a report to the Human Rights Council and engaged in extensive dialogue with the State and civil society on the visit’s findings and recommendations. The goal of the visits was to assess compliance with human rights norms relevant to assembly and association rights in the country and provide a road map for improvement. 37. For example, after his country visit to Georgia in February 2012, the mandate holder criticized amendments to the Law on Political Unions of Citizens, expressing his concern that they would create an uneven playing field and would restrict the civil-political activities of civil society organizations. On 8 May 2012, the Parliament of Georgia passed a number of amendments to address those concerns. Similarly, in a 2013 report on a country visit to the United Kingdom, the mandate holder called for accountability in the use of undercover police officers to infiltrate non-violent groups exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. 36 The mandate holder emphasized that while undercover police serve a vital function in gathering intelligence on criminal groups such as terrorists and organized crime syndicates, its use against protest movements and others exercising their legitimate rights to dissent and to peacefully assemble is not justifiable. Following the mandate holder’s recommendation, a public judge-led inquiry on the use of undercover policing was initiated in 2015.37 32 33 34 35 36 37 10 The mandate holder filed amicus briefs before the Plurinational Constitutional Court of the Plurinational State of Bolivia; the Supreme Court of Mexico; the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights; the European Court of Human Rights; the High Court of Kenya; the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; the High Court of South Africa; and the Constitutional Court in Guatemala. See “UN expert hails South African Constitutional Court’s decision against the criminalization of peaceful assembly”, November 22, 2018. Available at www.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx? sourcedoc=/Documents/Issues/FAssociation/AmicusCuriaeSouthAfrica_3.docx&action=default&Def aultItemOpen=1. See http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5456567&fecha=13/10/2016 (in Spanish). A/HRC/41/41/Add.3 (Tunisia); A/HRC/41/41/Add.4 (Armenia); A/HRC/35/28/Add.1 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); A/HRC/35/28/Add.2 (United States); A/HRC/32/36/Add.1 (Chile); A/HRC/32/36/Add.2 (Republic of Korea); A/HRC/29/25/Add.1 (Oman); A/HRC/29/25/Add.2 (Kazakhstan); A/HRC/26/29/Add.2 (Rwanda); A/HRC/23/39/Add.1 (United Kingdom); A/HRC/20/27/Add.2 (Georgia); A/HRC/44/50/Add.1 (Sri Lanka) and A/HRC/44/50/Add.2 (Zimbabwe). A/HRC/35/28/Add.1. Information is available at www.ucpi.org.uk/about-the-inquiry/.