A/HRC/19/40 53. The targeting of journalists and bloggers in the context of peaceful protests; the role of objective observers documenting violations, who contributed to providing de facto protection to peaceful protestors; and the invaluable contribution to the promotion and protection made by national human rights institutions in the context of peaceful protests were also mentioned. B. Responses of panellists and concluding remarks by the President of the Human Rights Council 54. The panellists were provided an opportunity to respond to a first set of questions raised by Member States and non-governmental organizations. 55. Mr. Kiai, responding to a question regarding lessons learned, said the issue of the equality of responses by States when dealing with peaceful protests and assemblies was of critical importance. Protests about issues on which State authorities agree were always allowed without problem. It was only when protests were about issues with which authorities disagreed that problems arose. People must be given the right to gather and express themselves, whether States liked or disliked what they were saying, and the space to organize and carry out their protests peacefully. Mr. Kiai, responding to a question on peaceful protests becoming non-peaceful, stressed that the fundamental duty lay with the State to provide security and make sure that a protest did not turn violent. Such a paramount duty must, however, not be turned around towards the protestors. Violent elements should be arrested and dealt with in accordance with criminal law. 56. Mr. Canton, responding to a question on activities that the Council could conduct on the present issue, said that the Inter-American Commission had contributed to establishing clear guidelines and tools for Governments to comply with their commitments and obligations, both positive and negative, in the context of protests. Those included legislation, policing strategies and tools. Similarly, the Inter-American Commission had granted protective measures in certain cases, calling on Member States to take specific action to protect the demonstrators. It had also sent requests for information to Member States. Those guidelines were very useful for the work of national and international civil society, particularly when engaging with Governments on human rights issues. 57. Mr. Hamilton said that the discussion had underscored the importance of international and regional cooperation to promote international standards, examples and good practices. In relation to the distinction between peaceful and non-peaceful assemblies, individuals did not forfeit their right to freedom of peaceful assembly simply because others in the same demonstration might choose to engage in violent activities. It became the role of the law enforcement forces to distinguish between those behaving peacefully and those engaging in violence. The legal regulation of freedom of peaceful assembly must reflect the principles of tolerance and pluralism. This implied in due course that where peaceful assemblies took place, they should be facilitated even when they questioned the authorities. Mr. Hamilton reiterated the suggestion of carrying out a study on the use of accountability mechanisms and their impact on situations where the use of force against demonstrators constituted a crime against humanity, or result to death or serious injuries. He emphasized the importance of dialogue and maintaining channels of communication between protestors and the authorities. Dialogue was good if its purpose was to facilitate to the greatest possible degree the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly. However, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly should never be made conditional on the successful outcome of negotiation processes, particularly where vulnerable groups were concerned. It might be useful to draft guidance concerning the negotiation of the practical exercise of freedom of assembly. 15