Propuesta “Proyecto de ley”

are fundamental elements of a democratic society, which they described as

a society respectful of human rights.

287_{UN doc. E/CN.4/SR.169, p. 10, para. 41 (Australia), and p. 13, para. 54 (Chile).} 288_{Ibid., p. 14, paras. 63-64.}

289_{Ibid., p. 14, para. 65.}

290_{UN doc. E/CN.4/SR.325, para. 15 (United States). For the text of the French amendment, see UN doc. E/CN.4/L.202.} On the vote, see UN doc. E/CN.4/SR.326, p. 5.

291_{UN doc.GAOR, 16}th_{session, 1961-1962, v. 1, Third Committee, doc. A/C.3/SR.1087, p. 134, para. 16.}

4.2.2 Freedom of association

The Human Rights Committee expressed concern “at the absence of specific legislation on political parties” in the Syrian Arab Republic “and at the fact that only political parties wishing to participate in the political activities of the National Progressive Front, led by the Baath Party, are allowed. The Committee [was] also concerned at the restrictions that can be placed on the establishment of private associations and institutions ... including independent non-governmental organizations and human rights organizations.” Hence, “the State party should ensure that the proposed law on political parties is compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. It should also ensure that the implementation of the Private Associations and Institutions Act No. 93 of 1958 is in full conformity with articles 22 and 25 of the Covenant.”293

The Committee observed that the restrictions on freedom of expression in force in Iraq not only violated article 19 of the Covenant but also impeded the implementation of articles 21 and 22 which protect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. “Therefore: penal laws and decrees which impose restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association should be amended so as to comply with articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.”294

The Human Rights Committee expressed concern at difficulties in Belarus arising from “the registration procedures to which non-governmental organizations and trade unions are subjected. The Committee also [expressed] concern about reports of cases of intimidation and harassment of human rights activists by the authorities, including their arrest and the closure of the offices of certain non-governmental organizations. In this regard: The Committee, reiterating that the free functioning of non-governmental organizations is essential for the protection of human rights and dissemination of information in regard to human rights among the people, [recommended] that laws, regulations and administrative practices relating to their registration and activities be reviewed without delay in order that their establishment and free operation may be facilitated in accordance with article 22 of the Covenant.”295

The Committee was “very concerned about interference by the [Venezuelan] authorities in trade union activities including the free election of union leaders [and recommended that the] State party should, pursuant to article 22 of the Covenant, guarantee that unions are free to conduct their business and choose their business without official interference.”296_{The Committee was also concerned that in Germany} “there is an absolute ban on strikes by public servants who are not exercising authority in the name of the State and are not engaged in essential services, which may violate article 22 of the Covenant.”297 _{The Committee also regretted that civil servants in} Lebanon “continue to be denied the right to form associations and to bargain collectively” in violation of article 22 of the Convention.298

293_{UN doc.GAOR, A/56/40 (vol. I). pp. 75-76, para. 26.} 294_{UN doc.GAOR, A/53/40 (vol. I), p. 21, para. 105.} 295_{Ibid., p. 29, para. 155.}

296_{UN doc.GAOR, A/56/40 (vol. I). p. 53, para. 27.} 297_{UN doc.GAOR, A/52/40 (vol. I), p. 34, para. 188.} 298_{Ibid., p. 57, para. 357.}

4.2.3 Freedom of assembly

While noting the statements by the State party to the effect that freedom of assembly was “fully respected” in the Syrian Arab Republic, the Human Rights Committee remained concerned at the restrictions in the Penal Code on the holding of public meetings and demonstrations, since they exceeded those authorized by article 21.299 _{The Committee also expressed concern at the fact that the legal rules in the} Netherlands Antilles on the right of peaceful assembly “contain a general requirement of prior permission from the local police chief. [It recommended that the] State party should ensure that the right of peaceful assembly may be exercised by all in strict conformity with the guarantees of article 21 of the Covenant.”300

The Committee further expressed concern in the case of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea “about the restrictions on public meetings and demonstrations, including possible abuse of the requirements of the laws governing assembly. The Committee [requested] the State party to provide additional information on the conditions for public assemblies and, in particular, to indicate whether and under what conditions the holding of a public assembly can be prevented, and whether such a measure can be appealed.”301_{The Committee was also concerned that the 1958 Cypriot} law “regulating lawful assembly and requiring permits for public assemblies [was] not in compliance with article 21 of the Covenant. In this regard, the Committee [emphasized] that restrictions on freedom of assembly must be limited to those which are deemed necessary in conformity with the Covenant.”302_{A few years later the Committee noted} the enactment of a new law in Cyprus regulating public assemblies and processions and expressed concern about the conditions that the appropriate authorities could impose “regarding the conduct of assemblies and processions upon receiving the required advance notification. The Committee also [noted] that the advance notice required to be given is too early and may unduly curtail the freedom of assembly. The Committee [reiterated] that restrictions on freedom of assembly must be limited only to those which are in conformity with article 21 of the Covenant.”303

With regard to Mongolia, the Committee observed that the limitations permitted under Mongolian law on the exercise of certain rights guaranteed by the Covenant were “so broad and numerous as to restrict severely the effective exercise of such rights”. This was, for instance, the case with “the requirement of prior permission for the holding of public meetings and the criteria for refusing such meetings”. Furthermore, the absence of adequate mechanisms to appeal against administrative decisions created an uncertainty as to whether such fundamental rights as the freedoms of association, assembly and movement were fully enjoyed in practice.304

The Committee expressed concern “about severe restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of assembly” in Belarus, which were not in compliance with the Covenant. It noted in particular that “applications for permits to hold demonstrations 299_{UN doc.GAOR, A/56/40 (vol. I). p. 75, para. 25.}

300_{Ibid., p. 82, para. 20.} 301_{Ibid., p. 103, para. 24.}

302_{UN doc.GAOR, A/49/40 (vol. I), p. 54, para. 323.} 303_{UN doc.GAOR, A/53/40 (vol. I), p. 34, para. 194.} 304_{UN doc.GAOR, A/47/40, p. 151, para. 601.}

are required to be submitted 15 days prior to the demonstrations and are often denied by the authorities, and that Decree No. 5 of 5 march 1997 imposes strict limits on the organization and preparation of demonstrations, lays down rules to be observed by demonstrators and bans the use of posters, banners or flags that ‘insult the honour and dignity of officials of State organs’ or which ‘are aimed at damaging the State and public order and the rights and legal interests of citizens’. These restrictions cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society to protect the values mentioned in article 21 of the Covenant. Therefore: The Committee [recommended] that the right of peaceful assembly be fully protected and guaranteed in Belarus in law and in practice and that limitations thereon be strictly in compliance with article 21 of the Covenant, and that Decree No. 5 of 5 March 1997 be repealed or modified so as to be in compliance with that article.”305

Lastly, the Committee held that the “wholesale ban on demonstrations” on grounds of “public safety and national security” in Lebanon was not compatible with the right to freedom of assembly under article 21 of the Covenant and should be lifted as soon as possible.306

Restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression under article 19(3)