A/HRC/19/40 denounced by the High Commissioner in her reports and statements on the situations in a number of countries, including in Bahrain, Belarus, Cote d’Ivoire, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, the then Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen. She stressed that when peaceful protests occur, States have the responsibility to respond in a manner that promotes and protects human rights, and prevent human rights violations. The authorities should not view peaceful protests as a threat, but rather engage in an open, inclusive and meaningful national dialogue to address protestors’ legitimate demands. 5. The Deputy High Commissioner reminded the Council that it had addressed the issue of the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests on repeated occasions through its examination of country-specific situations, including in respect of Belarus, Cote d’Ivoire, the then Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as through the adoption of resolution 15/21 on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 6. The Deputy High Commissioner noted that she was sure that the panel’s views and approaches to the issue would strengthen the resolve of the Council to reaffirm the importance of the right of each individual to express his or her grievances and/or aspirations through peaceful protests, and contribute to the development of an appropriate response by this Council, and by the international community as a whole. B. Mohamed Nasheed 7. President Mohamed Nasheed of Maldives, stated that he had been invited to the panel discussion as a President, but stood before the Council as a peaceful protester, someone who had spent much of his adult life speaking out against leaders who place their own interests over those of their people, leaders who sought power for power’s sake. He stressed that the recent events across North Africa and the Middle East represented a defining geopolitical moment, a time of awakening when Muslims across the world were standing up as one to demand equality, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Those developments provided a fitting rebuttal to those, inside and outside of Islam, who claim that such a religion was not compatible with democracy. 8. Mr. Nasheed further stated that 2011 would come to be seen as a tipping point for peaceful protests, with the democratization of information: the use of the Internet, social networking sites and mobile phones to break the State’s stranglehold on the news media. The use of modern communication technology had allowed those with grievances to mobilize and spread their message. Crucially, modern media also provided a lens through which the outside world could witness events unfold and learn the truth. The year’s protests showed that the power of Governments to control information had been broken forever. Today, the only viable option for States was to listen to the grievances of protesters and to try to address them. 9. Mr. Nasheed expressed his regret that the Governments of first the then Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and now the Syrian Arab Republic had chosen to deny that new reality. They had responded to the upwelling of popular protest, not with dialogue and reform, but with intimidation and violence. The international community had read with concern the conclusions of the commission of inquiry on the then Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the factfinding mission on the Syrian Arab Republic that human rights violations committed in both countries might amount to crimes against humanity. As soon as any Government chose to rule by the gun rather than by consent, it lost its legitimacy and its right to govern. 10. Mr. Nasheed added that peaceful protests were an important part of a wider process of reform and transition. Presenting the example of his own country where a protest 4