A/HRC/19/40 law, and the improvement of democracy. Fundamentally, human beings aspired to the same, i.e. a better life, through the recognition of their inherent dignity and their equal and inalienable rights, and better conditions for their social and material development. 42. It was further stressed that the issue of peaceful protests was not confined to major political demonstrations that expressed fundamental discontent with the Government in power. At the local level, the peaceful protests of the poorest who were victims of land evictions and large development projects which harmed their health or who denounced officials’ corruption did not attract the same attention. 43. Many delegations also mentioned that peaceful protests were an opportunity for Governments to enter into an open and constructive national dialogue with a view to preserving democracy, peace and security, highlighting the responsibility of Member States to earnestly listen to and address peoples’ legitimate concerns and aspirations. In that regard, the importance of improving dialogue was widely acknowledged. Peaceful protests were an opportunity to tackle root causes such as inequalities, discrimination, corruption and obstacles to effective participation in political debate. In that context, the importance of promoting a culture of non-violence and peace was mentioned. 44. One delegation, however, noted that it should not be taken for granted that a protest always reflected the opinion of society as a whole (vox populi) as protestors were sometimes guided by personal political goals. 45. The majority of delegations stressed the primary responsibility of States to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals, including women and the youth, taking part in peaceful assemblies. Guaranteeing human rights in the context of peaceful protests was at the essence of democratic participation and violence against peaceful protestors was an attempt against democracy which could threaten international peace and security. 46. Some delegations stated that Member States must strike a balance between the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests and the necessity to maintain public order and safety. In that context, delegations recalled that Member States had duties to take necessary measures to maintain public security, public order and social stability, in accordance with domestic law and international law obligations by which they were bound. To that end, the rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly could be subjected to certain restrictions imposed in conformity with the law and which were necessary in a democratic society in the interest 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. Furthermore, exercising human rights and fundamental freedoms could not be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of human rights. For some delegations, one of the main challenges lay in the capacity of demonstrators and law enforcement officials to refrain from committing any violent act detrimental to the effective enjoyment of human rights. In that connection, the infiltration into peaceful protests of subversive elements was mentioned as requiring greater vigilance. To that end, the need for Member States and international organizations to be precise when collecting information on peaceful protests was pointed out. 47. Other delegations, while acknowledging the existence of restrictions to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, stressed that they must pass the proportionality test and be reduced to a strict minimum, and recalled the existence of non-derogable rights in that context: the right to life and the right to be free from torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The loss of life in the context of peaceful protest was unjustifiable, and the State’s duty to guarantee the right to life in that context was greater than its duty to maintain order. Fundamentally, the use of discretionary powers 13