A/HRC/19/40 movement had started eight years previously, against an autocratic system of Government, and for a better, fairer system of Government, for equality and for justice, he stated that Maldives, like Tunisia, Egypt and others, was in a process of transition. It was the longterm outcome of that process – not the short-term toppling of a regime – that would determine whether the aspirations of the protesters were successfully met. 11. Mr. Nasheed then identified certain challenges shared by countries in transition, including by the Maldives. One challenge was to establish and strengthen independent institutions, to ensure that democracy and human rights were guaranteed regardless of who was in power. A second challenge related to transitional justice and reconciliation: to move forward, the search for truth and justice must be placed within an overall framework of national reconciliation. A third challenge was to rebuild the economic fabric of the country: people could not properly enjoy democratic freedoms if their basic needs were left unfulfilled. 12. Mr. Nasheed concluded by hoping that the panel discussion would send out a clear message to Governments everywhere that peaceful protest should not be viewed as a threat, but as an opportunity to connect with the people, understand their concerns and work together to improve society. If Governments did not adopt that enlightened approach, if they chose aggression over discussion and entrenchment over reform, then in today’s globalized world, it was increasingly clear that they would fail and, most likely, they would fall. C. Maina Kiai 13. Maina Kiai, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, stated that in his 25 years of experience as a human rights defender in Kenya and at the international level, the right for everyone to express their grievances and/or aspirations for change, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural, through peaceful protests and other non-violent ways, had been central. That right was indeed at the heart of any democratic society, for that was how ordinary citizens could peacefully influence and alert their Governments on their issues. Importantly, participating in peaceful protests was an alternative to violence and armed force as a means of expression and change, which should be supported. Peaceful protest must thus be protected, and protected robustly. 14. Mr. Kiai emphasized that protesting in a peaceful manner entailed the enjoyment and exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression and association, among others. These rights are guaranteed under international and regional human rights law, and facilitate the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. Essentially, States had three obligations: (a) to refrain from committing violations, including through the use of excessive force, against individuals exercising their rights to peaceful assembly, expression and association; (b) to protect individuals exercising these rights from abuses committed by non-State actors; and (c) to fulfil these rights by taking positive measures to prevent any violations from occurring, and to ensure that everyone could freely and effectively exercise such rights. When violations occurred, States had an obligation to thoroughly investigate such acts and provide effective remedy to victims. These obligations under international human rights law continued to apply during times of armed conflict, together with international humanitarian law. They were similarly applicable in situations of internal disturbances and tension which did not meet the threshold of armed conflict. 15. Mr. Kiai noted that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression and association could be limited, however on very restricted grounds in accordance with international law, and such restrictions must be proportionate to the aim pursued. In addition, these rights may be derogated from during a state of emergency. Nevertheless, 5