Source: http://freeassembly.net/foaa-online/sanctions-3-prong-test/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:52:02+00:00

Document:
The three-prong test (see Assembly Section 4.4) does not only apply to restrictions placed on an assembly before or during the event, but also to restrictions – such as sanctions – imposed afterwards.
[W]hile ensuring the security and safety of the embassy of the foreign State may be regarded as a legitimate purpose for restricting the right to peaceful assembly, the State party must justify why the apprehension of the author and imposition on him of an administrative fine were necessary and proportionate to that purpose. Praded v. Belarus, Human Rights Committee, Views of 29 November 2014, UN Doc. CCPR/C/112/D/2029/2011, para. 7.8.
[T]he freedom to take part in a peaceful assembly is of such importance that a person cannot be subject to a sanction – even one at the lower end of the scale of disciplinary penalties – for participation in a demonstration which has not been prohibited, so long as that person does not himself commit any reprehensible act on such an occasion. Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 15 October 2015, para. 149; see also Ezelin v. France, ECtHR, Judgment of 26 April 1991, para. 53; Galstyan v. Armenia, ECtHR, Judgment of 15 November 2007, para. 115.
Acts the ECtHR has considered reprehensible include throwing rocks at the police, Gülcü v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 19 January 2016, para. 116. the incitement of inter-ethnic violence Osmani and Others v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ECtHR, Decision of 11 October 2001. and damaging property. Taranenko v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 15 May 2014, para. 92. A person does not commit a reprehensible act by failing to disavow an assembly when others resort to such acts. Ezelin v. France, ECtHR, Judgment of 26 April 1991, para. 53. The ECtHR recently accepted that obstructing major highways in disregard of police orders may also be qualified as reprehensible. Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 15 October 2015, para. 174. The UN Special Rapporteur expressed his regret at this latter decision. UN Special Rapporteur and Human Rights Centre of the University of Ghent, Third Party Intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in Mahammad Majidli v. Azerbaijan (no. 3) and three other applications, November 2015, para. 15.
The nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference in relation to the aim pursued.  Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 15 October 2015, para. 146 (references omitted).
The Court has warned that, even if they are not imposed in practice, high fines are “conducive to creating a ‘chilling effect’ on legitimate recourse to protests.” Novikova and Others v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 26 April 2016, para. 211.
There is increasing concern globally about the criminalization of persons who exercise the right to assemble; a concern expressed by, among others, the UN Special Rapporteur. UN Special Rapporteur and Human Rights Centre of the University of Ghent, Third Party Intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in Mahammad Majidli v. Azerbaijan (no. 3) and three other applications, November 2015, paras. 14-16. “Criminalization” refers to administrative or criminal measures taken to sanction participants or organizers of assemblies. UN Special Rapporteur and Human Rights Centre of the University of Ghent, Third Party Intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in Mahammad Majidli v. Azerbaijan (no. 3) and three other applications, November 2015, para. 14; see also IACHR, Report on the Criminalization of the Work of Human Rights Defenders, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc.49/15, 31 December 2015, para. 12.
A number of international courts and mechanisms have made it clear that the application of criminal or administrative sanctions to organizers of or participants in peaceful assemblies warrants particular scrutiny; in principle there should be no threat of sanctions for participation in assemblies. This is true all the more of the imposition of prison sentences.
Where the sanctions imposed on the demonstrators are criminal in nature, they require particular justification. A peaceful demonstration should not, in principle, be rendered subject to the threat of a criminal sanction, and notably to deprivation of liberty. Thus, the Court must examine with particular scrutiny the cases where sanctions imposed by the national authorities for non-violent conduct involve a prison sentence. Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 15 October 2015, para. 146 (references omitted); see also Akgöl and Göl v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 17 May 2011, para. 43; Pekaslan and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 20 March 2012, para. 81; Yılmaz Yıldız and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 14 October 2014, para. 46.
The ECtHR has noted that in some legal systems, administrative law is used to punish offences that are criminal in nature. Where sanctions imposed are punitive and deterrent in nature, and in particular where individuals are deprived of their liberty, even briefly, the Court classifies these measures as “criminal”, even if they are considered administrative under national law. See, for example, Kasparov and Others v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 3 October 2013, paras. 41-45.
concern about the existence of provisions that make criminal offenses out of the mere participation in a protest, road blockages (at any time and of any kind), or acts of disorder that in reality, in and of themselves, do not adversely affect legally protected rights such as those to life, security, or the liberty of individuals. IACHR, Report on the Criminalization of the Work of Human Rights Defenders, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc.49/15, 31 December 2015, para. 127. See also IACHR, Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression 2008, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.134 Doc. 5, Doc. 5 rev. 1, 25 February 2009, Chapter IV, para. 70.

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