Source: http://freeassembly.net/foaa-online/observation-recording/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:51:32+00:00

Document:
1. What is included within the notion of “assembly”?
3. Protests: freedom of expression or freedom of peaceful assembly?
1. What is included in the notion of an association?
2. Who has the right to freedom of association?
6. What conditions need to be fulfilled for legitimate restrictions?
The presence of the journalists, monitors and other observers plays a key role in ensuring the accountability of security personnel during the management of large gatherings. The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR has held that the authorities should not deliberately prevent or hinder the media from covering a demonstration. Pentikäinen v. Finland, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 20 October 2015, para. 114.
Pentikäinen v. Finland concerned a photojournalist who was sent by a weekly newspaper to report on a demonstration in Helsinki. After the demonstration turned violent, the police decided to prevent the demonstrators from marching. They later sealed off the area and ordered the protesters to disperse. The applicant decided to stay on the scene, despite being asked to leave repeatedly. He was then arrested along with some demonstrators and detained for over 17 hours. He was subsequently found guilty of disobeying police orders, but no penalty was imposed.
The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR ultimately found that the measures taken against Pentikäinen were not disproportionate. It stressed, however, that “this conclusion must be seen on the basis of the particular circumstances of the instant case, due regard being had to the need to avoid any impairment of the media’s “watch-dog” role.” Pentikäinen v. Finland, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 20 October 2015, para. 114.
the authorities did not deliberately prevent or hinder the media from covering the demonstration in an attempt to conceal from the public gaze the actions of the police with respect to the demonstration in general or to individual protesters. Pentikäinen v. Finland, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 20 October 2015, para. 114.
The finding of no violation attracted criticism from scholars, as well as from four dissenting judges. The dissenters accepted that the police were initially justified in apprehending the applicant, but questioned whether detaining and prosecuting him beyond the moment when it had become clear that he was a journalist was really “necessary in a democratic society” (see Assembly Section 4.4).
[T]he crucial role of the media in providing information on the authorities’ handling of public demonstrations and the containment of disorder must be underlined. The “watch-dog” role of the media assumes particular importance in such contexts since their presence is a guarantee that the authorities can be held to account for their conduct vis-à-vis the demonstrators and the public at large when it comes to the policing of large gatherings, including the methods used to control or disperse protesters or to preserve public order. Any attempt to remove journalists from the scene of demonstrations must therefore be subject to strict scrutiny. Pentikäinen v. Finland, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 20 October 2015, para. 89. See also Najafli v. Azerbaijan, ECtHR, Judgment of 2 October 2012, para. 66.
[T]he content of the information that Mr. Vélez Restrepo was recording was of public interest. Mr. Vélez Restrepo captured images of soldiers involved in actions to control the demonstration … The dissemination of that information enabled those who saw it to observe and verify whether, during the demonstration, the members of the armed forces were performing their duties correctly, with an appropriate use of force. This Court has stressed that “[d]emocratic control by society, through public opinion, encourages transparency in the State’s actions and promotes the accountability of public officials in relation to their public functions.” Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia, IACtHR, Judgment of September 3, 2012, para. 145.
The Court went on to conclude that the attack on Vélez Restrepo had violated his rights to personal integrity and to freedom of thought and expression. It also found various violations stemming from the State’s failure to meet its duty to investigate (see Assembly Section 14) the attack and act against subsequent threats and harassment directed against Vélez Restrepo. Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia, IACtHR, Judgment of September 3, 2012, p. 89.
UN Special Rapporteurs and several regional human rights mechanisms have similarly emphasized that there is a right to observe and make recordings at assemblies and to disseminate these. See UN Human Rights Council, Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on the proper management of assemblies, UN Doc. A/HRC/31/66, 4 February 2016, para. 71; IACHR, Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression 2005, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124 Doc. 7, 27 February 2006, p. 145, para. 101; OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Guidelines 5.9 and 5.10 and Explanatory Notes, paras. 169 and and 206-10; Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Special Report on handling of the media during political demonstrations, 21 June 2007, p. 2; Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 2116 (2016), 27 May 2016, para. 7.11.
Third parties (such as monitors, journalists and photographers) may also be asked to disperse, but they should not be prevented from observing and recording the policing operation. OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Explanatory Notes, para. 168.
The AComHPR takes a similar view. AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 22.7.
15.1 Do non-journalists have the same right to record as the press?
Both the IACtHR and the ECtHR have stated in general terms that professional journalists should not enjoy special privileges compared to others fulfilling a comparable function. The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR has held that “public watchdogs” (a term which includes NGOs, academic researchers, authors, bloggers and popular users of social media) should enjoy similar protection as the press when they report on matters of public interest. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 8 November 2016, paras. 165-68. The IACtHR, in an advisory opinion, has taken the view that the practice of journalism is a right of every person, which should not be subject to formal requirements such as obtaining a license or becoming a member of a professional association. IACtHR, Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, November 13, 1985, paras. 74-81.
Everyone — whether a participant, monitor or observer — shall enjoy the right to record an assembly, which includes the right to record the law enforcement operation. This also includes the right to record an interaction in which he or she is being recorded by a State agent — sometimes referred to as the right to “record back”. The State should protect this right. UN Human Rights Council, Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on the proper management of assemblies, UN Doc. A/HRC/31/66, 4 February 2016, para. 71.
15.2 May recordings of assemblies be seized by the authorities?
An order to turn recordings of an assembly over to the authorities qualifies as an interference with the right to freedom of expression, See British Broadcasting Corporation v. the United Kingdom, EComHR, Decision of 18 January 1996; Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 14 September 2010, para. 60. which must comply with the same three-prong test applicable to limitations on freedom of peaceful assembly (see Assembly Section 4).
Confiscation, seizure and/or destruction of notes and visual or audio recording equipment without due process should be prohibited and punished. UN Human Rights Council, Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on the proper management of assemblies, UN Doc. A/HRC/31/66, 4 February 2016, para. 71; see also OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Explanatory Notes, para. 169 (“any requirement to surrender film or digitally recorded images or footage to the law-enforcement agencies should be subject to prior judicial scrutiny”).
Second, the order must pursue a legitimate aim (see Assembly Section 4.3), such as the investigation of an offense committed during the assembly. A seizure whose aim is to conceal the actions of the authorities does not meet this requirement. Third and finally, the seizure must meet requirements of necessity and proportionality (see Assembly Section 4.4).
The EComHR has however clarified that the enhanced right of journalists and other watchdogs to protect their confidential sources of information does not apply when they receive a summons to turn over recordings of assemblies, since no particular secrecy or duty of confidentiality is in play when recordings are made in public. British Broadcasting Corporation v. the United Kingdom, EComHR, Decision of 18 January 1996; Nordisk Film amp; TV A/S v. Denmark, ECtHR, Decision of 8 December 2005.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.