A/HRC/23/39 peaceful assemblies” (A/HRC/20/27, para. 26). The Special Rapporteur believes that unclear legal provisions should be clarified, and that in the absence of clarity, such provisions should be interpreted in favour of those wishing to exercise their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. 2. Notification procedure and decision-making 51. The aforementioned presumption further means that, in a free and democratic society, no authorization should be required to assemble peacefully. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur stresses again that the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, should be “governed at most by a regime of prior notification whose rationale is to allow State authorities to facilitate this exercise and to take measures to protect public safety and order and the rights and freedoms of others” (A/HRC/20/27, para. 28). The notable exception to this principle is that of spontaneous peaceful assemblies where organizers are unable to comply with the requisite notification requirements or where there is no existing or identifiable organizer. Fundamentally, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that “should the organizers fail to notify the authorities, the assembly should not be dissolved automatically and the organizers should not be subject to criminal sanctions, or administrative sanctions resulting in fines or imprisonment” (para. 29). 52. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that notification should be required only for large assemblies or for assemblies where a certain degree of disruption is anticipated.25 In his view, such notification should be submitted a maximum of, for example, 48 hours prior to the day the assembly is planned to take place. The organizers should send a single notification to a designated primary authority, and not to multiple authorities (e.g one or several municipal authorities, as is sometimes done in the case of parades, and/or law enforcement agencies).26 The primary authority should communicate the details of the notification to all relevant bodies.27 53. In this regard the Special Rapporteur believes that the organizers should be able to notify the designated primary authority of the holding of a peaceful assembly in the simplest and fastest way, by filling, for instance, a clear and concise form, available in the main local language(s) spoken in the country, preferably online to avoid uncertainties and possible delays in postage. The notification should merely contain information regarding the date, time, duration and location or itinerary of the assembly, and the name, address and contact details of the organizer. 54. By contrast, as in the view of the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts,28 a notification should be considered as unduly bureaucratic if any of the following requirements is imposed on the organizers: that there be more than one named organizer; that only registered organizations are considered as legitimate organizers; that formal identity documents, such as passports or identity cards, be produced; that identification details of others involved in the event, such as stewards be provided; that reasons for holding an assembly, bearing in mind the principle of non-discrimination, be given; and that the exact number of participants, which is difficult to predict, be given. In this connection, the authorities should not punish organizers if the number of participants does not match the anticipated number, as stipulated by domestic legislation (as has occurred in the Russian Federation). 25 26 27 28 OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, para. 115. Based on consultation with members of the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts. OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, para. 117. Based on consultation with members of the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts. 15