Infringement of freedoms of assembly and expression based on overbroad restrictions

Facts

The authors submit that they failed to obtain authorizations for holding public events which were for various matters of public concern. They were refused for failure to comply with the provisions of the domestic legislation such as failure to specify measures undertaken to ensure public order, medical care, and cleaning, failure to specify specific locations for the events, failure to select a satisfactory location, and the close proximity of local executive and administrative buildings. The authors claim that the respective refusals by the authorities of the State party to authorise the planned public events amount to a violation of their rights under articles 19 and 21, read in conjunction with article 2 (2) and (3) of the Covenant. The authors also claim that the provisions of the Law On Mass Events are vague and subject to different interpretations, in violation of articles 19 and 21, read in conjunction with article 2 (2) of the Covenant.

Admissibility

Provisions of article 2 of the Optional Protocol cannot be invoked in conjunction with other provisions of the Covenant, except when the failure by the State party to observe its obligations under article 2 is the proximate cause of a distinct violation of the Covenant. However, issues under articles 19(2) and 21 of the Covenant, taken separately, are sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility.

Merits

The organizers of an assembly generally have the right to choose a location within sight and sound of their target audience and no restriction to this right is permissible unless it (a) is imposed in conformity with the law; and (b) is necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, protection of public health or morals or protection of the rights and freedoms of others. When a State party imposes restrictions with the aim of reconciling an individual’s right to assembly and the aforementioned interests of general concern, it should be guided by the objective of facilitating the right, rather than seeking unnecessary or disproportionate limitations to it. In the cases herein, no justification as to how, in practice, the authors’ requested public events would have fallen within the restrictions as set out in article 21. The State party also failed to show that any alternative measures were taken to facilitate the exercise of the authors’ rights. The onus is on the State party to demonstrate that the restrictions on the authors’ rights under article 19 of the Covenant were necessary and proportionate. Thus, absent justifications from the State party on the restrictions imposed on the authors’ right of peaceful assembly, the Committee finds that the State party violated the authors’ rights under article 21. Finally, the Committee considers that the restrictions imposed on the authors, although based on domestic law, were not justified pursuant to the conditions set out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant, thus violating the authors’ rights under the same article.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated, inter alia, to provide the authors with adequate compensation, including reimbursement of any legal costs they have incurred.

The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. In that connection, the Committee notes that it has dealt with similar cases in respect of the same laws and practices of the State party in a number of earlier communications, and thus the State party should revise its normative framework on public events, consistent with its obligation under article 2 (2), with a view to ensuring that the rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant may be fully enjoyed in the State party.

Implementation

Deadline: 18 April 2023

By: Maricon Torres Lorenzo