A/HRC/44/50/Add.3 26. The Special Rapporteur reports that Section 7, 8 and 12 of the MPOA are restrictive and should be amended. However, the Government of Zimbabwe states that amending the same has the effect of rendering the Act insignificant as a legal instrument to govern management of assemblies. Provisions of the MPOA were informed by, amongst other issues, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the 1 August 2018 Violence, which include the need for the enforcement of law and order to prevent a recurrence of the events of 1 August 2018 and the need to ensure accountability in respect of the alleged perpetrators of the violence and where such violence erupts during civil commotion. 27. Contrary to the Special Rapporteur’s view, the MPOA is not restrictive, but promotes the right to assembly as follows: Section 7 on notices: It has to be noted that the notice procedure to hold a procession, demonstration or meeting is not cumbersome as alluded. Conveners of these gatherings give notice to a regulating authority. The Interpretation Section of the MPOA gives the meaning of the Regulating Authority as a police officer in charge of a police district. The Act makes a provision that the notice can be served at any police station, which makes it easy for the conveners not to travel long distances. Section 8 (Consultations, Negotiation, Amendment of Notices and Conditions with Respect to Gatherings to avoid Public Disorder). Under sub-Section (1), the regulating authority has to notify the convener of a public demonstration within 72 hours of receiving the notice on the proposed demonstration. If the police officer has no objections that this will not cause any disruption or disorder, then he or she will notify the convener. This is a positive development because previously under Section 26 of the predecessor law, the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), no time-limit was specified. So, conveners could be kept in the dark until the last minute before being told about the position of the police. Thus, the police are now limited to 72 hours to respond to the notice, which is reasonable. 28. Further, under sub-section (3), the Act lays out that if the police receives credible information that the proposed demonstration will result in serious disruption to vehicular or pedestrian traffic or injury to participants, the regulatory authority will invite the conveners to a consultative meeting for necessary amendments, if any, which is also progressive as it allows the police and those intending to demonstrate to engage each other. 29. Section 12 (Civil Liability in Certain Circumstance of Convener of a Gathering). Under this Section, if a demonstration is held without following the laid-out procedures in the Act, the convener will be held liable for any damages or injuries caused. The aggrieved persons can seek compensation or other forms of redress through the courts of law. The reason for making the conveners liable for any damages or injuries sustained is legally logical. The Act makes the convener liable for damages in circumstances where the dictates of the law in convening the gathering are not followed. This type of sanction is fair, reasonable and justifiable as it would render the law useless if there is no liability placed upon those who disregard it. 30. It is worth noting that the Act is intra vires the Constitution and does not hinder the enjoyment of the fundamental rights of peaceful assembly and association. B. Good practices and challenges 1. The exercise of right in practice 31. The Special Rapporteur’s observation that when managing assemblies the general presumption that prevails is in favour of maintaining the law and order rather than the one of facilitating and guaranteeing the holding of assemblies and enable the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly does not reflect the true character and status of Zimbabwe’s commitment to implement its obligations relating to the right to freedom of assembly and other rights contained in its Bill of Rights. 8