A/HRC/19/40 regulating freedom of assembly (including drafters of legislation and law enforcement agencies); (b) an interpretative aid for the Courts; (c) an advocacy platform for those seeking to challenge restrictive practices and hold municipal authorities to account; and (d) a basis for a range of related review, monitoring and training activities. The Guidelines had provided useful assistance to legislators and been cited by both lawyers and judges in legal cases. 28. In relation to the need to have a specific law to regulate freedom of assembly, the Panel of Experts had argued that the greatest utility of such legislation was the detail, clarity and predictability it could bring to the entire regulatory process – defining precisely which assemblies were subject to particular legal obligations, setting out the legitimate grounds for restriction, and specifying the overall process and time frame. In that light, the purpose of any specific legislation must be to facilitate the enjoyment of the right to assemble and States must avoid the creation of an excessively regulatory, bureaucratic system that sought to prescribe for all matters and that could thus infringe fundamental rights. 29. The Panel of Experts had emphasized, inter alia: (a) the desirability of having a notification (rather than authorization) procedure; (b) the need to make provision for the holding of spontaneous assemblies, where compliance with the requisite notification requirements was impracticable; (c) the importance of the authorities providing assembly organizers with timely notice of the reasons for imposing any restrictions, and the possibility of an expedited appeal procedure; and (d) the need to resist arguments that made freedom of assembly subservient to the free flow of traffic; and (e) the need to build capacity with non-governmental organizations and human rights defenders working on the ground to systematically monitor assemblies and their policing. 30. Mr. Hamilton, in his circulated written statement, proposed the following recommendations for the Council’s consideration: (a) taking steps to establish and promote a network of international and regional partners (including Africa, the Americas, ASEAN, and the OSCE), to meet periodically to discuss challenges, share best practices in relation t, and further promote the protection of freedom of peaceful assembly; (b) coordinating the maintenance of a database of freedom of assembly issues which arose in the context of universal periodic review and other treaty monitoring mechanisms; (c) supporting and facilitating regional training sessions for NGOs, civil society actors and human defenders, as well as local municipal authorities and law enforcement officials, on the human rights framework governing freedom of assembly and the monitoring of assemblies; (d) supporting a study of the use of accountability mechanisms (and their impact) in situations where the use of force against demonstrators either constituted a crime against humanity or results in death or serious injury; and (e) given the emphasis placed upon negotiated management of demonstrations (rather than the use of force), consulting upon and drafting a handbook on the negotiation of protest (given, in particular, the power differentials often involved and the importance of not relinquishing core human rights protections). F. Lake Tee Khaw 31. Lake Tee Khaw, Vice-Chair of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, SUHAKAM, shared information on the work of the Commission prior to, during and after the public rally by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (also known by its Malay acronym BERSIH, meaning “clean”), in Kuala Lumpur, on 9 July 2011, to call for the conduct of clean and fair elections in the country. 32. On 28 June 2011, following various statements by the Government and the police stating that the rally would not be permitted ostensibly in order to maintain peace, security and prevent traffic chaos, SUHAKAM had issued a press statement urging the authorities to 9