Source: http://freeassembly.net/foaa-online/assemblies-handling/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:50:25+00:00

Document:
facilitate peaceful protests by providing protestors with access to public space and protecting them, without discrimination, where necessary, against any form of threat and harassment, and underlines the role of local authorities in this regard. UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 25/38 on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/25/38, 11 April 2014, para. 4.
The State’s obligation to facilitate includes the responsibility to provide basic services, including traffic management, medical assistance and clean-up services. Organizers should not be held responsible for the provision of such services, nor should they be required to contribute to the cost of their provision. 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. 40.
the competent institutions of the state have a duty to design operating plans and procedures that will facilitate the exercise of the right of assembly … [including] rerouting pedestrian and vehicular traffic in a certain area. IACHR, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc 57, 31 December 2009,para. 193.
necessary measures in order to minimise any disruption to traffic or other security measures such as providing first-aid services at the site of the demonstrations, in order to guarantee the smooth conduct of the events. Novikova and Others v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 26 April 2016, para 171; see also Oya Ataman v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 December 2006, para. 39.
More generally, the duty to facilitate implies a wide range of actions on the part of the authorities to ensure they are able to ensure the safe and effective conduct of the right to assemble. This includes the training of law enforcement personnel (see Assembly Section 13.6), effective communication with organizers and participants (see Assembly Section 13.5), and proper preparedness for assemblies (see Assembly Section 13.7).
In those states in which notification or prior notice is called for one must recall that this does not mean that the states only have the positive obligation to facilitate and protect those assemblies notice of which is given. IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 66.
The OSCE-ODIHR has published a detailed Human Rights Handbook on Policing Assemblies that aims to provide guidance to the police on how to facilitate the right to assemble peacefully. Another in-depth resource in this area is the AComHPR’s Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa.
13.2 May the authorities use stop-and-search and arrest powers before an assembly?
Intrusive anticipatory measures should not be used in an assembly. Participants on their way to an assembly should not be stopped, searched or arrested unless there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence. 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. 49.
This view finds support in the case-law of the ECtHR.
[T]here is a clear risk of arbitrariness in the grant of such a broad discretion to the police officer … There is, furthermore, a risk that such a widely framed power could be misused against demonstrators and protestors in breach of Article 10 and/or 11 of the Convention. Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, ECtHR, Judgment of 12 January 2010, para. 85.
The ECtHR has also frequently condemned arrests or other hindrances caused by the authorities that prevented participants from reaching an assembly and lacked a clear justification. See, for example, Djavit An v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 20 February 2003 (the applicant was prevented by Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot authorities from visiting the “buffer-zone” or the southern part of the island in order to participate in bi-communal meetings with Greek Cypriots); Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, ECtHR, Judgment of 1 December 2011 (the applicants were detained on their way to a demonstration where the police feared terrorism or rioting, because they were carrying banners bearing the inscriptions “Freedom for all prisoners” and “Free all now” and held for almost six days in order to prevent them from inciting others to liberate prisoners); Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, ECtHR, Judgment of 11 February 2016 (the applicants were arrested two days prior to a demonstration and rapidly sentenced to seven days’ administrative detention on arbitrary grounds, in order to prevent their participation in the demonstration and to punish them for having participated in opposition protests); Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 July 2016 (the applicants were stopped on a highway on their way to a demonstration for free and quality education and held there for several hours); Kasparov v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 11 October 2016 (the applicant’s flight ticket was seized for “forensic examination”, preventing him from reaching an opposition rally). A “refusal to allow an individual to travel for the purpose of attending a meeting amounts to an interference with individual’s freedom of assembly,” Kasparov v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 11 October 2016, para. 66. which must be justified under the three-prong test (see Assembly Section 4). The Court has held that the authorities may not prevent participants from reaching an assembly merely because the assembly is considered unlawful due to the absence of prior notice or authorization (see Assembly Section 11.3). Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 July 2016, paras. 106-109.
13.3 How should violent participants and agents provocateurs be dealt with?
[A]n individual does not cease to enjoy the right to peaceful assembly as a result of sporadic violence or other punishable acts committed by others in the course of the demonstration, if the individual in question remains peaceful in his or her own intentions or behaviour. Ziliberberg v. Moldova, ECtHR, Decision of 4 May 2004, para. 2; Frumkin v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 January 2016, para. 99; Primov and Others v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 12 June 2014, para. 155.
Before countenancing dispersal, law enforcement agencies should seek to identify and isolate any violent individuals separately from the main assembly and differentiate between violent individuals in an assembly and others. This may allow the assembly to continue. 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. 61.
Dispersal should not … result where a small number of participants in an assembly act in a violent manner. In such instances, action should be taken against those particular individuals. Similarly, if agents provocateurs infiltrate an otherwise peaceful assembly, the authorities should take appropriate action to remove the agents provocateurs rather than terminating or dispersing the assembly or declaring it to be unlawful.  OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Explanatory Notes, para. 154.
The AComHPR has also taken a similar line. AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 22.3.
The authorities have not shown that prior to declaring the whole meeting closed they had attempted to separate the turbulent sector and target the problems there, so as to enable the meeting to continue in the sector of the stage where the situation remained peaceful. The Court is therefore not convinced that the termination of the meeting … was inevitable. Frumkin v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 January 2016, para. 133.
Dispersing an assembly carries the risk of violating the rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly as well as the right to bodily integrity. Dispersing an assembly also risks escalating tensions between participants and law enforcement. For these reasons, it must be resorted to only when strictly unavoidable. 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. 61.
Where participants in an assembly are acting non-peacefully or in violation of the law, law enforcement officials should use, to the extent possible, communication and de-escalation strategies and measures for the containment of individuals committing or threatening violence or, if necessary and proportionate, the arrest of individuals who are committing or preparing to commit violent acts, before attempting to disperse an assembly. AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 22.3.
In what circumstances may dispersal be considered?
where violence is serious and widespread and represents an imminent threat to bodily safety or property, and where law enforcement officials have taken all reasonable measures to facilitate the assembly and protect participants from harm. 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. 61.
The AComHPR takes a similar line. AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 22.5. An important principle is that the authorities should seek to identify and isolate any violent individuals before contemplating dispersal (see Assembly Section 13.3).
The fact that the assembly is causing disruption to traffic. This must normally be tolerated (see Assembly section 9.3), and will only justify dispersal in exceptional cases (see Assembly Section 9.3).
The presence of persons perceived to be a risk. As the ECtHR has stated, “it would be wrong to disperse a demonstration simply because some of its participants have a history of violent behaviour.” Primov and Others v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 12 June 2014, para. 152.
In those rare cases where dispersal is in principle warranted, demonstrators should normally be given a chance to convey their views before the authorities break up the assembly (see Assembly Section 11.5).
The joint report recognizes that an assembly that incites to discrimination, hostility or violence contrary to Article 20 ICCPR may warrant dispersal, if less intrusive and discriminatory measures have failed. 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. 62. In R.B. v. Hungary – a case where the applicant, who was of Roma origin, had faced racist insults and been threatened with an axe by participants in a far-right rally – the ECtHR also recognized that “in certain situations the domestic authorities might be required to proceed with the dispersal of a violent and blatantly intolerant demonstration.” R.B. v. Hungary, ECtHR, Judgment of 12 April 2016, para. 99. See also Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, ECtHR, Judgment of 17 January 2017, para. 64.
How should dispersal be handled?
According to the joint report on the proper management of assemblies 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. 61. and the OSCE-ODIHR Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Explanatory Notes, para. 165. the steps to be taken before dispersal should be laid down in comprehensive, publicly available guidelines.
The decision to disperse should be taken by an officer of sufficient rank, who has accurate information of the situation unfolding on the ground. 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. 63; AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 22.5. In line with the duty of the authorities to communicate effectively with organizers and participants (see Assembly Section 13.5), the first step will always be to clearly inform those present of the intention to disperse the assembly, and to give participants time to leave voluntarily before taking any further action. 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. 63; AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 22.4; OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Explanatory Notes, para. 168.
[A] massive and programmed arrest of people without legal grounds, in which the State massively arrests people that the authority considers may represent a risk or danger to the security of others, without substantiated evidence of the commission of a crime, constitutes an illegal and arbitrary arrest. Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, IACtHR, Judgment of September 21, 2006, para. 93.
In the dispersal of assemblies that are unlawful but non-violent, law enforcement officials shall avoid the use of force or, where that is not practicable, shall restrict such force to the minimum extent necessary. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, Principle 13.
If assembly participants are generally behaving peacefully, law enforcement officials must avoid the use of force to disperse the assembly. Where force is deemed to be a lawful and proportionate response, law enforcement officials must only use the minimum level of force necessary. AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 22.2.
One derives from the general principles on the use of force that there are no situations authorizing the use of lethal force to break up a protest or demonstration, or to shoot indiscriminately into the multitude. The states should implement mechanisms for effectively prohibiting recourse to the use of lethal force in public demonstrations  IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 81.
The use of firearms for law enforcement during assemblies is subject to specific rules (see Assembly Section 13.8). A core principle is that firearms may never be used simply to control or disperse an assembly. 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. 60; AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 22.6; IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 82.
Law enforcement agencies and officials should take all reasonable steps to communicate with assembly organizers and/or participants regarding the policing operation and any safety or security measures. 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. 38.
The report adds that communication must be entirely voluntary and not a means to impose on organizers an obligation to negotiate about restrictions on the assembly. 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. 39.
Promotion of opportunities for communication prior to demonstrations and of the activities of liaison officers to coordinate with demonstrators concerning … law enforcement operations, in order to avoid conflict situations. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124 Doc. 5 Rev. 1, 7 March 2006, para. 68.
Law enforcement officials should maintain open communication with all relevant stakeholders, including assembly organisers and participants, other essential services providers and stewards. Law enforcement officials must proactively and continually communicate the intention of the assembly operation, any limitations or restrictions imposed on the assembly and contingency planning in place with stakeholders, and should consider the appointment of a specially trained communication liaison as a focal point for communication with stakeholders. AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 13.2.
If a stand-off or other dispute arises during the course of an assembly, negotiation or mediated dialogue may be an appropriate means of trying to reach an acceptable resolution. Such dialogue – although not always successful – can serve as a preventive tool to help avoid the escalation of conflict, the imposition of arbitrary or unnecessary restrictions, or recourse to the use of force. OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Guideline 5.4.
The authorities’ duty to communicate with the organizers of an assembly is also confirmed by international jurisprudence. According to the ECtHR, it is “an essential part of their positive obligation to ensure the peaceful conduct of the assembly. Frumkin v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 January 2016, para. 129.
The applicant in Frumkin v. Russia had participated in a demonstration at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow against alleged “abuses and falsifications” in parliamentary and presidential elections held in 2011 and 2012. The route and conduct of the assembly had been agreed beforehand between the organizers and the authorities, after substantial discussions. The Moscow Department of the Interior had published information about the forthcoming demonstration on its website, including a map indicating the area allotted to the assembly, which included the park at Bolotnaya Square.
When the march approached the square, however, the leaders found that a cordon of riot police barred access to the park and the meeting venue was limited to Bolotnaya embankment, where the organisers had set up a stage. The leaders of the march then demanded that the police open access to the park, and announced a “sit-down strike”, which was joined by 20 to 50 people. At the request of the police, the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation attempted to convince the leaders of the sit-in to resume the procession, but no senior police officers or municipal officials came to the site, and there was no direct communication between the authorities and the leaders of the sit-in.
Although the leaders eventually abandoned the sit-in, some commotion later arose at the same site, with members of the crowd tossing various objects at the police cordon, including a Molotov cocktail. Riot police then began to disperse the demonstration and arrested some participants, including the applicant.
The fact that the police were exercising caution against the park being taken over by a campsite … might have justified the refusal to allow access to the park, given that in any event the assembly had sufficient space for a meeting. Crucially, whatever course of action the police deemed correct, they had to engage with the sit-in leaders in order to communicate their position openly, clearly and promptly. Frumkin v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 January 2016, para. 118.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that in the present case the authorities made insufficient effort to communicate with the assembly organisers to resolve the tension caused by the confusion about the venue layout. The failure to take simple and obvious steps at the first signs of the conflict allowed it to escalate, leading to the disruption of the previously peaceful assembly.  Frumkin v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 January 2016, paras. 126-128.
The Court considers that from any point of view the authorities in this case did not comply with even the minimum requirements in their duty to communicate with the assembly leaders, which was an essential part of their positive obligation to ensure the peaceful conduct of the assembly, to prevent disorder and to secure the safety of all the citizens involved.
The authorities have thus failed to discharge their positive obligation in respect of the conduct of the assembly at Bolotnaya Square. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention on that account. Frumkin v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 January 2016, paras. 129-130.
[I]n the present case the authorities made insufficient effort to communicate with the assembly organisers to resolve the tension caused by the confusion about the venue layout. The failure to take simple and obvious steps at the first signs of the conflict allowed it to escalate, leading to the disruption of the previously peaceful assembly … The Court considers that from any point of view the authorities in this case did not comply with even the minimum requirements in their duty to communicate with the assembly leaders, which was an essential part of their positive obligation to ensure the peaceful conduct of the assembly, to prevent disorder and to secure the safety of all the citizens involved. Frumkin v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 January 2016, paras. 128-129.
The proper management of assemblies can place high demands on the officers to whom it is entrusted. The joint report on the proper management of assemblies stresses the importance of adequate training of law enforcement officials to prepare them for the facilitation of assemblies. 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. 42.
[L]aw-enforcement agents must be trained to assess whether or not there is an absolute necessity to use firearms, not only on the basis of the letter of the relevant regulations, but also with due regard to the pre-eminence of respect for human life as a fundamental value.  Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 24 March 2011, para. 250.
An appropriate legislation would not fulfill its goal if, inter alia, States would not educate and train members of their armed forces and security agencies on principles and rules of human rights protection and on the limits to which the use of weapons by law enforcement officials must be subject to in all circumstances. Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, IACtHR, Judgment of July 4, 2007 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), para. 87.
• The safety and protection of persons and groups who are particularly vulnerable.
The UN Human Rights Council has called upon States to ensure adequate training not only of law enforcement officials, but also private personnel acting on behalf of the State during assemblies. UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 25/38 on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/25/38, 11 April 2014, para. 13.
Under international law, the use of force during assemblies must strictly comply with principles of legality, precaution, necessity, proportionality and accountability. 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. 50.
In order to prevent an inappropriate intervention by State forces that could infringe on the human rights of demonstrators, the States should adopt measures both of a regulatory as well as an administrative nature that enable police forces to have clear rules of conduct and the professional training needed to perform their jobs in situations involving mass concentrations of people. IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 66, 31 December 2011, para. 141. See also Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, IACtHR, Judgment of July 4, 2007 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), para. 86.
[P]olicing operations must be sufficiently regulated by national law, within the framework of a system of adequate and effective safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse of force … Police officers should not be left in a vacuum when performing their duties: a legal and administrative framework should define the limited circumstances in which law-enforcement officials may use force and firearms, in the light of the international standards which have been developed in this respect. Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 24 March 2011, para. 249.
In preparing for an assembly, the authorities should take steps to avoid the need to use force or, if this is impossible, to minimize the consequences. 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. 52. The ECtHR has stated that the operation should be “regulated and organised in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible any risk to the life of the demonstrators.” Şimşek and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 26 July 2005, para. 106.
States should plan properly for assemblies, which requires the collection and analysis of information, anticipation of different scenarios and proper risk assessments. Contingency plans and precautionary measures must also be put in place. Proper planning and preparation requires continuous monitoring of activities and should be adaptable to changing circumstances. 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. 37.
The OSCE-ODIHR Human Rights Handbook on Policing Assemblies and the AComHPR Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa provide guidance on the how to plan for assemblies.
Precaution also requires that law enforcement officials should have access to proper equipment for self-defense and coordination (such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof and fire-retardant clothing, portable communications devices) and appropriate less-lethal weapons (see Assembly Section 13.8), as underlined by many authorities. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, Principle 2; 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, paras. 52-55; UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 25/38 on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/25/38, 11 April 2014, para. 14; IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 66, 31 December 2011, para. 143; IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 15; OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Guideline 5.5 and Explanatory Notes, para. 172.
It appears from the case file that the police officers who were on duty at both incidents enjoyed great autonomy of action, and they took initiatives whilst in the grip of panic and pressure, which they would probably not have taken had they had the benefit of proper training and instructions. The Court … finds that the absence of a clear, centralised command was an important lacuna which must have increased the risk of police officers shooting directly at the crowd.
Furthermore, it was the responsibility of the Security Forces, who had been aware of the tense situation in both districts, to provide the necessary equipment, such as tear gas, plastic bullets, water cannons, etc., to disperse the crowd. In the Court’s view, the lack of such equipment is unacceptable.
In the deployment of officials to an assembly, law enforcement agencies must take into account the potential adverse influence that the visible appearance of law enforcement officials, deployment tactics and equipping of officials at an assembly can have on the way in which an assembly develops. AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 14.2.
Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, Principle 4.
Consistently with this, the IACtHR has held that “force or coercive means can only be used once all other methods of control have been exhausted.” Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, IACtHR, Judgment of July 4, 2007 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), para. 83. The AComHPR takes the same view. AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 21.1.2.
Second, where the use of force becomes unavoidable, it should be directed as precisely as possible at the person(s) necessitating its use. The ECtHR has repeatedly held that force should be “made strictly necessary by a person’s own conduct; See, for example, Pekaslan and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 20 March 2012, para. 81; İzci v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 23 July 2013, para. 55. the AComHPR states that law enforcement officials using force “must, as far and for as long as possible, differentiate between peaceful assembly participants and those who engage in violent acts.” AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 21.1.2.
The proportionality requirement sets a ceiling on the use of force based on the threat posed by the person targeted. This is a value judgement that balances harm and benefit, demanding that the harm that might result from the use of force is proportionate and justifiable in relation to the expected benefit. 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. 58.
To determine the proportionality of the use of force, the severity of the situation that the agent faces must be assessed. To this end, among other circumstances, it is necessary to consider: the level of intensity and danger of the threat; the attitude of the individual; the conditions of the surrounding area, and the means available to the agent to deal with the specific situation. In addition, this principle requires the law enforcement agent, at all times, to reduce to a minimum the harm or injuries caused to anyone, as well as to use the lowest level of force required to achieve the legitimate purpose sought. Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, IACtHR, Judgment of August 27, 2014, para. 136.
The principles of necessity and proportionality apply to all uses of force, including lethal force and the use of firearms (see Assembly Section 13.8). The UN Human Rights Council holds that “lethal force may only be used to protect against an imminent threat to life,” and never in an indiscriminate manner against a crowd, UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 25/38 on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/25/38, 11 April 2014, paras. 10 and 11. views echoed in the joint report on the proper management of assemblies 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. 60. and by the AComHPR. AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 21.1.4.
Should the use of lethal force be strictly necessary, the rules of conduct should require that the agents of the State first identify themselves as such, and then give the persons involved a clear warning of their intention to use force, so as to give them time to cease and desist, except in those cases where the life or personal safety of third persons or the agents themselves is in imminent danger. IACHR, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc 57, 31 December 2009, para. 118.
The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials contain similar language. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, Principle 10.
The use of the term “absolutely necessary” indicates that a stricter and more compelling test of necessity must be employed than that normally applicable when determining whether State action is “necessary in a democratic society” … the Court must, in making its assessment, subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, particularly where deliberate lethal force is used, taking into consideration not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administer the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination. Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 24 March 2011, para. 176.
Governments are under a duty to establish effective reporting and review procedures for any incidents where law enforcement officials cause injury or death by the use of force (see Assembly Section 14) or discharge a firearm in the performance of their duty (see Assembly Section 13.8).
Which rules govern the use of firearms during assemblies?
The use of firearms during assemblies is fully subject to the principles governing the use of force during assemblies (see Assembly Section 13.7). In addition, a number of specific rules apply.
Governments and law enforcement agencies shall adopt and implement rules and regulations on the use of force and firearms against persons by law enforcement officials. In developing such rules and regulations, Governments and law enforcement agencies shall keep the ethical issues associated with the use of force and firearms constantly under review. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, Principle 1.
The principle of precaution (see Assembly Section 13.7) implies that law enforcement officials should be selected by thorough screening procedures Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, Principle 18. and receive continuous and thorough professional training (see Assembly Section 13.6), including in the correct use of firearms issued to them. They should be properly equipped, including with protective clothing and less-lethal weapons to reduce the need to resort to firearms as far as possible. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, Principle 2; 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, paras. 52-55; UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 25/38 on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/25/38, 11 April 2014, para. 14; IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 66, 31 December 2011, para. 143; IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 15; OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Guideline 5.5 and Explanatory Notes, para. 172. Automatic firearms should never be part of the equipment used during assemblies. 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. 67(e).
The prohibition on officials who might have contact with demonstrators carrying firearms and lead munitions has proven to be the best measure for preventing lethal violence and deaths in contexts of social protest. The operations may include having firearms and lead munitions somewhere outside the radius of action of the demonstration for those exceptional cases in which there is a situation of actual, serious, and imminent risk to persons that makes their use warranted. In such an extreme circumstance there should be explicit rules concerning who has the power to authorize their use and the ways in which such authorization is to be documented. IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 82.
In line with the requirement of necessity and proportionality (see Assembly Section 13.7), law enforcement agents may use firearms during an assembly only to the extent necessary to avert a life-threatening situation, and only after exhausting less hazardous alternatives. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, Principle 18; IACHR, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc 57, 31 December 2009, para. 118; IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 81; AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 21.1.4. Firearms may never be used simply to control or disperse (see Assembly Section 13.4) an assembly or to fire indiscriminately into a crowd. 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. 60; AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 22.6; IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 82.
The Commission has … recommended implementing ammunition registration and control systems. Registration of this type, both before and after operations, is an administrative control measure that helps to facilitate judicial and administrative investigations into possible violations of rules and principles on the use of force. Therefore, states should have in place effective mechanisms for making inventories of firearms, ammunition, and other control devices, such as chemical weapons, to be used in a security operation. IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 227.
The joint report on the proper management of assemblies likewise states that there should be “a clear system of record keeping or register of the equipment provided to individual officers in an operation, including vehicles, firearms and ammunition.” 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. 65.
States should ensure that there is a system of reporting to a superior whenever law enforcement officials use firearms during an assembly. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, Principle 11(f); IACHR, Report on Citizen Security and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc 57, 31 December 2009, para. 119; AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 24.4. If the use of a firearm causes an injury or death, it triggers the legal obligation to launch an investigation (see Assembly Section 14).
Which rules govern the use of less-lethal weapons during assemblies?
In line with the principle of precaution (see Assembly Section 13.7), States are required under international law to equip their law enforcement agencies with less-lethal weapons, to enable a graduated response to threats and to minimize the use of firearms. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, Principle 2; 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. 55; AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 21.3.1; IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 15; OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Guideline 5.5.
Several international mechanisms have warned that less-lethal weapons may still have injurious or even lethal effects, and have underlined the importance of independent scientific testing of such weapons prior to deployment, and appropriate control of their use, including through training (see Assembly Section 13.6) of and instructions to the law enforcement officials to which they are issued. UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 25/38 on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/25/38, 11 April 2014, para. 15; Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), UN Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, Principle 3; 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. 55; AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 21.3.1; IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 84.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Abdullah Yaşa and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 16 July 2013, paras. 49-51. . See also Ataykaya v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 22 July 2014, para. 57.
The use of less lethal weapons should be preceded by formal notices so as to give persons the opportunity to evacuate the zone without provoking situations of panic or stampedes, and guidelines should be put in place for attributing responsibility for their incorrect use. IACHR, Annual Report 2015, March 17, 2016, Chapter IV.A, para. 16.
With regard to the use of tear gas, the Special Rapporteur recalls that gas does not discriminate between demonstrators and non-demonstrators, healthy people and people with health conditions. He also warns against any modification of the chemical composition of the gas for the sole purpose of inflicting severe pain on protestors and, indirectly, bystanders. UN Human Rights Council, First Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27, 21 May 2012, para. 35.
[P]olice operations – including the launching of tear-gas grenades – should not only be authorised but should also be sufficiently delimited by domestic law, under a system of adequate and effective safeguards against arbitrary action, abuse of force and avoidable accidents. Abdullah Yaşa and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 16 July 2013, para. 43.
In the Court’s view, firing a tear-gas grenade along a direct, flat trajectory by means of a launcher cannot be regarded as an appropriate police action as it could potentially cause serious, or indeed fatal injuries, whereas a high-angle shot would generally constitute the appropriate approach, since it prevents people from being injured or killed in the event of an impact. Abdullah Yaşa and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 16 July 2013, para. 48. See also Ataykaya v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 22 July 2014, para. 56.
Tear gas may not be used “indiscriminately … to the extent that not only the demonstrators but also unconnected persons in the vicinity [are] affected” İzci v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 23 July 2013, para. 60. and “there can be no justification for the use of such gases against an individual who has already been taken under the control of the law enforcement authorities.” Ali Güneş v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 10 April 2012, para. 41.
[P]epper spray is a potentially dangerous substance and should not be used in confined spaces. Even when used in open spaces the CPT has serious reservations; if exceptionally it needs to be used, there should be clearly defined safeguards in place. For example, persons exposed to pepper spray should be granted immediate access to a medical doctor and be offered an antidote. Pepper spray should never be deployed against a prisoner who has already been brought under control. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Report to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina Carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 19 March to 30 March 2007, CPT/Inf (2009) 25, 14 October 2009, para. 79.
The UN Special Rapporteur, 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. 65. the AComHPR, AComHPR, Guidelines for the Policing of Assemblies by Law Enforcement Officials in Africa, 4 March 2017, para. 14.1. the IACHR IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124 Doc. 5 Rev. 1, 7 March 2006, para. 68. and the OSCE-ODIHR Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Explanatory Notes, para. 153. all state that law-enforcement personnel deployed during an assembly should be clearly and individually identifiable, for example from a nameplate or number that is visible at all times.
The ECtHR has held that States have a duty to effectively investigate injuries and deaths during assemblies (see Assembly Section 14), and that this duty is violated if security forces take steps that make it impossible to identify individual responsibilities.
The Court finds that this circumstance, namely the inability of eyewitnesses to identify the officer who fired the shot because he was wearing a balaclava, is in itself a matter of concern. In this connection it would refer to its previous finding, under Article 3 of the Convention, to the effect that any inability to determine the identity of members of the security forces, when they are alleged to have committed acts that are incompatible with the Convention, breaches that provision. Similarly, the Court has already stated that where the competent national authorities deploy masked police officers to maintain law and order or to make an arrest, those officers should be required to visibly display some distinctive insignia – for example a warrant number – thus, while ensuring their anonymity, enabling their identification and questioning in the event of challenges to the manner in which the operation was conducted. Those considerations are all the more valid in the present case as it concerns a death following a shot fired by a member of the security forces who was wearing a balaclava. Ataykaya v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 22 July 2014, paras. 52-54 (references omitted).
, the Court sidestepped the question whether officers may cover their faces during a demonstration; however, it stated that if a mask or balaclava is worn, the officer must at least “visibly display some distinctive insignia – for example a warrant number” to enable “identification and questioning in the event of challenges to the manner in which the operation was conducted.” Ataykaya v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 22 July 2014, paras. 52-54 (references omitted); see also Cestaro v. Italy, ECtHR, Judgment of 7 April 2015, para. 217. The Court has not discussed whether such insignia are also required if the faces of the officers are sufficiently visible to enable identification.

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