Dear Amnesty activists and supporters. The Olympic games should be a time of celebrating diversity, but the French ban prohibiting Muslim women from wearing sports hijabs is excluding French athletes from taking part. Please join the on-line campaign to end discrimination in France. For any inquiries about France please contact our coordinator for Western Europe Jovana Bosnjak Jovana.Bosnjak@amnesty.org.uk
We also have a postcard action supporting the Saturday mothers in Turkiye. Please print the attached postcard templates and send cards to the Interior Ministry of Turkiye. For further questions please contact Chris Ramsey country coordinator for Turkiye chris.ramsey@amnesty.org.uk
How we respond to refugees fleeing wars and oppression defines us as a society and civilization. On 14th of June vigils and demonstrations were held in many European countries including Greece, Denmark, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Turkey, UK and others to call for justice for the 600 people who drowned when the “Adriana”, a clapped out fishing boat packed with refugees including many children, sank near Pylos Greece. Investigations by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and the BBC point to the culpability of the Greek authorities particularly the Hellenic coastguard for this horrendous and preventable loss of life. Just this week Amnesty released a report investigating the suffering of people detained in the EU-funded Closed Controlled Access Centres in Samos Greece. And in Finland a new law on migration is a green light for violence and pushbacks at the border. For more information please contact Ulrike Schmidt Balkan and regional team coordinator Ulrike.schmidt@amnesty.org.uk
In Poland refugees are still dying in the forests pushed back and forth by Belarussian and Polish border guards. Refugees from Afghanistan, who have often helped Western troops and are persecuted by the Taliban are not receiving the welcome that Ukrainian refugees rightly receive. Used by Belarus and forcibly returned by Polish border guards refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other oppressive and war-torn countries are forced back and forth over the border. Many, including children have died in the swampy and unforgiving forests. Our new coordinator for Central Europe Lucja Jastrzebska is giving us overview and updates. For further information please contact lucja.jastrzebska@amnesty.org.uk
Finally Amnesty has released a detailed report called “Under protected and over restricted“ about the right to protest in 21 countries. Chris Ramsey, our coordinator for Turkey has worked through the 209 pages of the report for us and produced a more digestible summary for us. For further inquiries please contact chris.ramsey@amnesty.org.uk.
Malta
El Hiblu update :
Apologies to all the groups who expressed an interest in adopting the El Hiblu 3. The Action circular on the case has still not been issued, and I finally received an answer from the research team: The courts in Malta are currently hearing preliminary issues, following the attorney generals decision to indict the El Hiblu 3. The first preliminary issue is that they are examining whether Malta has jurisdiction over the case. At the moment all we can do is wait. I will keep you updated as soon as I receive more information. In the mean-time all we can do is continue to write solidarity messages.
France
July 2024 Western & Northern Europe jovana.bosnjak@amnesty.org.uk
Hijab bans in French sport expose discriminatory double standards at Olympic and Paralympic Games
Join our online social campaign during the Olympics in support.
VISIBILITY AND SOLIDARITY ARE A KEY A PRIORITY
“Banning French athletes from competing with sports hijabs at the Olympic and Paralympic Games makes a mockery of claims that Paris 2024 is the first Gender Equal Olympics and lays bare the racist gender discrimination that underpins access to sport in France,” said Anna Błuś, Amnesty International’s Women’s Rights Researcher in Europe.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/07/france-hijab-bans-olympic-and-paralympic/
In France, the prohibition on Muslim women from wearing any form of religious headgear extends far beyond the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Bans on hijabs are in place in several sports including football, basketball and volleyball, at both professional and amateur levels. These bans, put in place by sports federations, mean that many Muslim women are not only excluded from participating in sports but also never get the necessary training and competition opportunities to reach the Olympic level.
Amnesty joined ’’Basket pour toutes’’ campaign, a grass root organisation formed by hijabi basketball players and allies in France, and in support of their Open Public Letter to FFBB and FIBA with a clear call to overturn the hijab ban in French basketball.
General Sports Regulations in Basketball in France, are rules which prohibits the wearing of “any equipment with a religious or political connotation” at all levels and for all categories. Since then, groups in France such as Basket pour Toutes (Basketball for All), formed by Muslim women players, coaches, and allies, have been relentlessly campaigning to overturn the discriminatory ban.
https://basketpourtoutes.org/.
Earlier this year, Amnesty International has called on the French Basketball Federation and the French Ministry of Sport, Olympic and Paralympic Games to ensure that rules regarding the wearing of sports head coverings in competitions comply with international human rights law and do not discriminate against and violate the rights of Muslim women players who wear headgear in France.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur21/7282/2023/en/.
DURING THE OLYPMICS VISIBILITY AND SOLIDARITY ARE A KEY A PRIORITY
- Join our social media campaign on your social media pages #amnestyukeurope #BasketPourToutes and help us gain visibility for the cause during the Olympics. Tag Basket pour Toutes, the Hijabeuses to your posts.
Turkiye
United Nations Committee against Torture By Chris Ramsey chris.ramsey@amnesty.org.uk
On 26 July the United Nations Committee against Torture that monitors states’ compliance with the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or punishment published its latest review of the situation in Türkiye.
The Committee was concerned by allegations that torture and ill-treatment continued to occur in Türkiye, including beatings and sexual assault by law enforcement officers. It recommended that all allegations of torture and ill-treatment be promptly, impartially and effectively investigated, and that those found guilty be punished commensurately with the gravity of their crimes. It also raised concerns over the deterioration in the independence of judges and lawyers since the failed coup attempt in 2016, including the mass dismissal of judges and prosecutors, the closure of bar associations, the erosion of the independence of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, and the potential impacts affecting the investigation and prosecution of torture and ill-treatment. The Committee recommended that Türkiye ensure the full independence, impartiality, and effectiveness of the judiciary, and refrain from interference in the self-governance of professional lawyers’ associations.
The Committee was alarmed by the regime of aggravated life imprisonment in Türkiye, noting that many prisoners subject to this regime were kept isolated in cells for over 22 hours per day in de facto solitary confinement, and that some had no prospect of release. The Committee was particularly concerned about the situation of prisoners Abdullah Öcalan, Hamili Yıldırım, Ömer Hayri Konar and Veysi Aktaş, currently held in İmralı Prison, who have been unable to contact their families or lawyers since March 2021. The Committee recommended that the State party consider abolishing the penalty of aggravated life imprisonment and immediately facilitate contact between prisoners held in İmralı Prison and their families and legal representatives.
The above findings, officially named Concluding Observations, are now available on the session page.
I’m afraid there are no significant updates on any of our cases in Türkiye this month but with this newsletter I am sending you new resources which you could use in your campaigning. particularly if you have stalls over the summer.
Gezi Prisoners of Conscience
Groups are still receiving responses to their very much welcomed solidarity messages and cards to the three male Gezi defendants Osman Kavala, Can Atalay, and Tayfun Kahraman but not (to my knowledge) from the two women, Çiğdem Mater and Mine Özerden. If you have received responses from these two please could you let me know and do keep sending solidarity cards/messages remembering to use the “tracked and signed for” service.
We hear that Osman Kavala has been visited in prison by a long standing member of the Turkish parliament who apparently expressed a wish to see his situation “resolved” but we await to see whether this results in any movement by the authorities.
Saturday Mothers
There is no change in the situation regarding the Saturday Mothers. Since the 1000th vigil on 25 May things seem to have returned to the status quo ante with only very small vigils tolerated and ongoing harassment of those seeking answers to the questions they have for then authorities about the fates of their long disappeared loved ones.
Campaigning Resources
Over the last couple of years I have been in contact with fellow Amnesty activists in Germany who are also working on human rights abuses in Türkiye. We recently met online to discuss getting involved in joint campaigning on cases beyond those that I write to you about regularly and I am hoping that this will develop over the next few months.
They are very good at producing campaigning resources such as postcards and posters and kindly agreed to translate some into English for me. So, please find below the following files that you could use to have postcards and a poster printed:
Gezi case: postcard front and back and poster
Saturday Mothers: postcard front and back
Greece
Pylos disaster; One year on no justice for over 600 preventable deaths.
By Ulrike Schmidt Ulrike.schmidt@amnesty.org.uk
After 15 hours of ignoring the distress calls from the overcrowded boat a patrol boat from the Hellenic coastguard tied a rope to the vessel causing it to overturn. Then they left, returning only much later to rescue some of those who were able to swim long enough. One of the survivors told Amnesty that he was two and a half hours in the water. None of the hundreds of women and children packed into the hull of the boat had a chance.
The BBC conducted an investigation into the mass death and the failings and actions by the Greek coastguard that led up to it, as well as other examples of reckless and violent pushbacks of refugees as well as outright murder (young refugee being thrown into the sea with hands behind his back) It was screened on BBC 2 on 15th June, but you can still watch it on BBC I player: “Dead Calm : Killing in the Med ?
On 14t June all over Greece, and in Turkiye, Malta, France, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Czech Republic, and UK vigils and demonstrations were held calling for justice, below a photo from our Amnesty vigil outside the Embassy of Greece.
SAMOS: “WE FEEL IN PRISON ON THE ISLAND” UNLAWFUL DETENTION AND SUB-STANDARD CONDITIONS IN AN EU-FUNDED REFUGEE CENT
New Amnesty report : Samos report
Since 2020, the European Commission supports Greece with the establishment and operation of the “Closed Controlled Access Centres” (CCAC), designed to replace the “hotspots” for asylum seekers on the Aegean islands. This briefing discusses the concerning human rights situation in the Samos CCAC, focusing on the period of July 2023 to January 2024, when increased arrivals led to a situation of overcrowding in the centre, exacerbating the existing shortcomings in the provision of basic services to refugees mostly from Middle Eastern and African countries. Amnesty International is particularly concerned about the systematic use of “restrictions of freedom” (ROF), provided for under Article 40 of Greek Law no. 4939 of 2022 (the “Asylum Act”), on new arrivals in the CCAC, as well as about the flawed implementation of this measure and its discriminatory outcomes. By law, ROFs prevent residents, who are racialized asylum seekers, from leaving the CCAC for up to 25 days from entry, exposing them to unlawful and arbitrary de facto detention and, especially in the period under consideration, the risk of experiencing inhuman and undignified living conditions. Many of the asylum-seekers are being detained for far more than 25 days, some were not allowed to leave the centre for many months.
Amnesty International researchers also spoke with a group of over ten men, including Palestinians, who lived in the same section of the centre. Some said that most of them did not receive a “police paper” until their 70th day in the CCAC. In a different area of this section, Karim, a man from Palestine said that he had been in the CCAC for three months and received his “police papers” after 62 days since his arrival and his asylum card after 73 days. “We feel in prison on the island”, he commented. Tom, a man with a child, said that he was in the CCAC since the end of September 2023, and only allowed to exit the CCAC for two weeks at the time of our interview.
INADEQUATE PROVISION OF WATER AND MEDICAL SERVICES The long-standing shortages in running water in the CCAC persisted from July 2023, negatively impacting residents’ ability to attend to personal hygiene and sanitation. In February 2024, the authorities informed the GNCHR that water was only available two to four hours per day. In May 2024, the authorities told the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) that residents received three litres of drinking water per day. Temporary solutions to increase water supply remain inadequate to meet CCAC’s needs. The CCAC has lacked a permanent medical doctor since its opening. The medical staff supporting the CCAC as of May 2024 – under the Greek Public Health Organization “EODY” – lacks specialized staff providing sexual and reproductive care despite women making up 20% of the CCAC’s population. The resource limitations experienced by the public hospital in Vathi further impacts CCAC’s residents’ access to healthcare. NGOs reported cases of scabies and skin conditions, connecting them with the running water shortages, inoperative laundry services, and overcrowding. A single mother with baby : “we buy diapers when we have money, cheaper diapers, and my child had a skin reaction. We didn’t change diaper all day because we don’t have enough”. Ameer from Palestine noted: “Water in the bathroom is dirty and discontinuous. Me and my wife share the toilet and bathroom with a lot of people including single men. There are lots of cockroaches, I am asking just detergent so that we can clean for ourselves. My kids got lice in the hair and cockroaches move on them while they sleep. Kids wake up at night and find the cockroaches walking on them and it is traumatic”. United Nations bodies highlight that “according to [the World Health Organization, WHO], between 50L and 100L of water per person per day are needed to ensure that most basic needs are met…Access to 20-25L per person per day represents a minimum, but this amount raises health concerns because it is insufficient to meet basic hygiene and consumption requirements”.48 UNHCR standards sets the amount of potable water that should be available in emergency situations at 7.5- 15L per person per day.49 According to the GNCHR, Samos residents are only given “1.5 liters of drinking water per day”.50 In May 2024, the authorities told the CPT that residents received three litres of drinking water per day. 51 Furthermore, CSOs noted that the extensive metal fencing and lack of shaded areas in the CCAC, contributes to very high temperatures in the centre, 52 which increases the need for access to water
Unaccompanied minors (UAMs) in the Samos CCAC are accommodated separately from the general population, in a “safe area”. As of Amnesty International’s visit of December 2023, UAMs were subjected to heavy restrictions of movements including a ban on leaving the CCAC or the safe area to visit the general population area – except to attend school. International standards on the detention of children for migration purposes state that the detention of children is strictly prohibited.
Please find the full report with artwork by refugees detained in Samos expressing their experience here: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur25/8356/2024/en
Finland
June 10, 2024
Finland: Emergency law on migration is a “green light for violence and pushbacks at the border”
Regarding the Finnish Government’s proposal for an emergency law on the so-called “instrumentalization” of migration, defined in the text as actions by “states or other actors” to facilitate irregular migration movements into another country in an attempt to destabilize it, Director of Amnesty International’s European Institutions Office, Eve Geddie said:
“This law gravely undermines access to asylum and the protection from refoulement in Finland. It risks serving as a green light for violence and pushbacks at the border.”
In so-called “instrumentalization” situations, the law empowers the authorities to limit the reception of asylum applications in specific parts of the Finnish border, granting them powers to prevent entry, including by force. Under certain circumstances, authorities can even refrain from assessing people’s individual circumstances altogether, in breach of the non-derogable principle of non-refoulement.
Often described as “pushbacks”, the unlawful practice of summary and violent returns at the border, are increasingly used in different European countries to prevent people in need of protection from reaching their borders.
The law allows Finnish border guards to make exceptions in cases involving people they consider to be in vulnerable situations or those at risk of serious violations upon return to the country where they crossed from. However, assessing people’s situations and vulnerabilities requires specially trained personnel as well as adequate time. It is highly questionable that such an assessment would be possible in the context of brief interactions with border officials.
The proposed law offers no real possibility of appeal, only allowing those affected to file an administrative complaint, which would not suspend the return.
These powers appear to be inconsistent with both existing EU legislation, and the recently agreed EU Crisis and Force Majeure Regulation.
“We have European and international law standards for a reason: the principle of non-refoulement must always be upheld and claims of serious human rights violations upon return require rigorous scrutiny, regardless of how people have reached the territory”, said Geddie.
“This proposal would endanger the rights of people seeking safety and could lead to arbitrariness and violence at the border. Finland should reject this attack on its core constitutional values and the rule of law, and urgently restore conditions to manage borders humanely and in respect of its international obligations.”
Finland’s proposal follows in the dangerous footsteps of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, where numerous policies and practices have been introduced in breach of human rights law in the name of tackling so-called “instrumentalization” attempts, since 2021.
Background
This legislative proposal is part of a series of recent measures proposed by the Finnish Government that curtail the rights of asylum seekers and migrants, presented as a response to an increase in the number of people crossing into Finland from Russia to seek asylum since last September.
Since November, Finland has gradually closed all eastern border crossing points with Russia. In April, the closure was extended indefinitely. Only two people have crossed the border to seek asylum between February and mid-May, according to official data.
UNHCR and others have raised concerns over Finland’s response lacking alignment with EU and international law while the United Nations Human Rights Committee highlighted “the risks of penalization, detention and refoulement faced by asylum-seekers” in Russia
Poland
August 2024 by Lucja.Jasrtrzebska@amnesty.org.uk
Since 2021 refugees from war torn countries and human rights abuse have been used by Belorussia and forced over the land border with Poland, Latvia and Lithuania often accompanied by beatings and attacks by dogs. Polish, Latvian and Lithuanian border guards have often violently pushed them back and committed numerous human right abuses (see previous reports by Amnesty International.)
No-Entry Buffer Zone
On June 13, Poland redeployed a roughly 60-kilometer (40-mile) no-entry buffer zone along its border with Belarus, a 200-meter wide area off limits to all non-residents, including humanitarian groups and journalists. Poland’s previous government temporarily set up a larger buffer zone along its entire border in 2021.
Activist Groups
Refugee rights groups have spoken out against the buffer zone, saying it will prevent them from assisting migrants who cross the border in remote areas and are in need of food or medical assistance from spending days, weeks and even a year in the forest. Poland, Latvia and Lithuania have repeatedly been criticized by humanitarian organizations for their approach to handling the crisis. NGOs have accused the countries of violating human rights by using a “pushback” tactic to expel migrants and asylum-seekers. Individuals and groups who have tried to assist migrants are often detained and prosecuted.
The Polish Border Guard reported that on the section of the Polish-Belarusian state border, 196 helpers were detained this year as of June 10.
The International Organization for Migration has called on all three states to ensure that rule of law is upheld at the borders, and that the human rights and freedoms of all migrants are respected, regardless of immigration status. We will continue to push for the rule of law, and the right to seek asylum from persecution in another country to be upheld for refugees seeking safety.
A new film called Green Border by Agnieszka Holland is bringing the human cost of these policies to light.
A family of refugees from Syria, an English teacher from Afghanistan and a border guard all meet on the Polish-Belarusian border during the most recent humanitarian crisis in Belarus.
Link here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt27722543/
United Kingdom
Standing against the threat of the far right in the UK
After the terrible scenes of violence perpetrated by far right thugs last weekend, Stand up to Racism organised nationwide counter demonstrations uniting communities to stand together and protect our British values of celebrating diversity and protecting those whom the far right wants to attack: Refugees, Muslims, People of colour, LGBT communities. In Walthamstow we were near 10000 defiantly standing together against the hate and poison of the far right. Amnesty was there too. For further questions on joining local anti-racist protests please contact Ulrike.schmidt@amnesty.org.uk
Europe
Chris Ramsey chris.ramsey@amnesty.org.uk has kindly summarized Amnesty’s new report into the state of the right to protest in Europe. Here is the full report.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur01/8199/2024/en/
UNDER PROTECTED AND OVER RESTRICTED
THE STATE OF THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IN 21 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contents
- INTRODUCTION
- THE RIGHT OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY: OVERREGULATION, HOSTILITY AND DISCRIMINATION
- CONCERNS REGARDING NOTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROTECTION OF SPONTANEOUS ASSEMBLIES
- UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE BURDENS IMPOSED ON ORGANIZERS OF ASSEMBLIES
- SWEEPING RESTRICTIONS ON ASSEMBLIES BASED ON TIME, PLACE, AND CONTENT
- CONCERNS REGARDING POLICING OF PROTESTS
- CONCERNS REGARDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS PERPETRATED DURING ASSEMBLIES
- CONCERNS REGARDING STATES’ RESPONSE TO PEACEFUL ACTS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AT ASSEMBLIES
- CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS TO CHILDREN’S ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHT OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY
- CONCERNS REGARDING SURVEILLANCE, MONITORING, COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND STORING OF PROTESTERS’ DATA
- KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- INTRODUCTION
Peaceful protest has long been a vehicle for advancing human rights and justice. Many of the rights and
freedoms that we take for granted today have been achieved, in whole or in part, by people taking to the
streets to demand change for the better and make their calls heard. In a world that grapples with increasing
inequality, persistent discrimination, racism, armed conflict, and climate change concerns, protests are a
more important tool than ever for people seeking justice and human rights. However, Amnesty International’s
upcoming report documents how, instead of respecting, protecting and facilitating people’s right to
peacefully assemble, authorities across Europe are deliberately stigmatizing, impeding, deterring and
punishing people who protest.
Amnesty International researched the legal regulations and related policies governing the right of peaceful
assembly in 21 European countries, namely Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Türkiye and the UK. States are obliged, under the international treaties to which they are party,
to respect, protect and uphold human rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression and association,
as well as the rights to non-discrimination, privacy and physical integrity which encompasses the right to
security and to be free from violence. These are essential for people to protest safely. However, Amnesty
International’s research shows that many state authorities, instead of addressing pressing concerns,
removing obstacles and promoting dialogue to remedy injustice, abuses and discrimination, they respond to
peaceful protests by cracking down on those organizing and participating in protests. This includes through
the passing of repressive laws, establishment of onerous procedural obligations, imposition of arbitrary or
discriminatory restrictions, racist policing and use of unnecessary or excessive force against peaceful
protesters, arbitrary interferences including the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of protesters, as well
as increasing use of invasive surveillance technology.
Such attacks on the right of peaceful assembly make many people reluctant and fearful to exercise their
human rights. The subsequent ‘chilling effect’ is especially serious for individuals and groups who already
experience heightened barriers to protest, and who are subjected to inequality, marginalization, racism,
discrimination and violence because of, among other grounds, their race, ethnicity, religion, and/or migration
status.
Amnesty International’s research on the current situation of the right of peaceful assembly in Europe is part
on the organization’s global campaign ‘Protect the Protest’ and contributes to the global effort to ensure that
states respect, protect and fulfil the right of people to organize and participate in protests safely, with
adequate protection and without discrimination, state violence, oppression or surveillance.
- THE RIGHT OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY:
OVERREGULATION, HOSTILITY AND DISCRIMINATION
International and regional human rights standards governing the right of peaceful assembly emphasize, as a
core principle, the ‘presumption in favour of (peaceful) assemblies’, which should be reflected in domestic
legislation, policy and practice. This obliges states to facilitate assemblies and, among other things, remove
obstacles to participants and organizers, fully justify any restrictions, and exercise tolerance and restraint
(including in relation to disruption). States have both negative obligations (to avoid unwarranted interferences
with the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly), and positive obligations (to both protect those exercising
the right and to facilitate the exercise of the right in ways that make it possible for participants to safely
assemble and achieve their objectives). Any limitations placed on the right of peaceful assembly must in turn
adhere to the principles of legality, proportionality and necessity.
States must respect, guarantee in law and ensure that all individuals can exercise their right to protest
without discrimination based on ethnicity, sex, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender identity,
disability, age, political or other opinion, socio-economic status, nationality or any other status. People
participating in protests do not all face the same barriers and the various forms of intersecting discrimination
make participation much harder for some groups, including women, children, LGBTI people and gender
non-conforming people, Black people, Arab people, Roma and other racialized groups, and persons with
disabilities. The groups face specific challenges to participation in protests and more generally in the civic
space, as their rights are restricted by societies through different forms of intersecting racism, sexism,
violence, marginalization, social norms and sometimes even legislation to repress them and to maintain a
status quo dominated by patriarchy and heteronormativity.
The right of peaceful assembly covers any form of assembly provided that they are “peaceful”. An assembly
must still be considered “peaceful” even if there is sporadic violence or unlawful behaviour by some
individuals. When a minority of participants are engaging in violence, as opposed to widespread and serious
violence by participants, the authorities should ensure that those who remain peaceful can continue to
exercise their rights without the entire assembly being restricted or dispersed.
All 21 countries analysed in the report have ratified the key human rights instruments protecting the right of
peaceful assembly. However, there is variance across the region in terms of people’s ability to exercise this
right. This derives, in part, from states’ differing codification of the right and failure to fully implement the
international and regional provisions protecting the right of peaceful assembly in domestic law. While some
countries have long-standing legislative provisions on assemblies that have not been revised to reflect
international human rights standards (such as in Portugal), in other countries newer and/or more recent laws
have been used, proposed or already introduced, to create a significantly more restrictive environment for
the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly (Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg
(proposal), Spain, UK).
This research found that harmful rhetoric from state officials across the 21 countries was commonplace and
that it often stigmatized peaceful protests and the aims and identities of their participants, demonizing
protesters by likening them to “terrorists”, “criminals”, “foreign agents”, “anarchists” and “extremists”,
among numerous other stigmatizing terms. The groups on the receiving end of such harmful statements
include people who mobilized for Palestinian solidarity, climate justice, women’s rights, LGBTI activism and
rights, the rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, and anti-racism and discrimination against
minorities. This harmful rhetoric is at times used to justify the introduction of yet further restrictions on the
right of peaceful assembly (Germany, Italy, UK). Meanwhile, such attacks on specific groups of participants
can exacerbate the fact that people face different barriers to exercising their right of peaceful assembly, and
various forms of intersecting discrimination make participation much harder for some groups in the countries
examined in the report.
All 21 countries examined have codified the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination in their
legislation at various levels. Nonetheless, international and regional mechanisms have highlighted numerous
deficiencies, including fragmented legislation, the absence of protection on certain grounds (e.g. sexual
orientation and gender identity) and the lack of comprehensive protective provisions. In some of the
countries studied, the existing legal provisions prohibiting discrimination stand in stark contrast to the
treatment that some groups and individuals face in practice, including Black people, Arab people or people
belonging to other racialized groups (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, UK), women
(Greece, Poland, Türkiye, UK), LGBTI people (Hungary, Poland, Serbia, Türkiye), children (UK, Poland,
France), people with disabilities (France, UK), sex workers (France, Ireland, Italy), people protesting in
support of Palestinian’s rights (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland, UK), climate
justice protesters (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Slovenia,
Sweden, Switzerland, UK) both in relation to the right of peaceful assembly and also other rights and
freedoms. Moreover, in some countries, specific legislative provisions appear to discriminate against ‘non-
citizens’ (even if the practice might differ) (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,
Portugal, Serbia, Türkiye) or children with regards to the right to organize assemblies (specific details are
included below addressing children in protests).
- CONCERNS REGARDING NOTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROTECTION OF SPONTANEOUS ASSEMBLIES
The advance requirements commonly imposed on the organizers of public assemblies by state authorities
take either the form of a notification requirement (as in most countries, where the organizer must simply
inform the authorities of their intention to hold an event), or an authorization requirement (where the
organizer must apply for permission to be able to hold – and in some cases, even to publicize – an event).
The distinction between notification and authorization can become blurred in practice, and what a state
describes as a notification requirement may in fact more closely resemble an authorization requirement.
Given that such procedural requirements – even a requirement simply to notify the authorities of a planned
assembly – constitute an interference with the right of peaceful assembly, they must always be justified
within a human rights framework. The notification regimes in the countries examined are generally
mandatory (with organizers – and sometimes participants – facing administrative and/or criminal penalties
for non-compliance). An alternative approach, however – one that gives weight to the negative obligation of
states not to interfere with the right of peaceful assembly and that recognizes the agency of those who wish
to assemble – is a system of voluntary notification for most forms of assembly. States should seek to expand
the range of assemblies that are subject only to a voluntary notification scheme – reserving a requirement to
submit prior notification only for narrow categories of assembly where prior notice is essential to aiding the
protection and facilitation of an assembly or the rights of those affected by it. States should seek to expand
the range of assemblies that are subject only to a voluntary notification scheme. Notification regimes should
not be used to control protests, the procedures should be transparent, accessible and free of charge, and no
burdensome or excessive obligations should be placed on organizers. Furthermore, non-notification does not
absolve the authorities from their obligations to facilitate the assembly, nor to protect its participants. Non-
notification should not be used as a basis to disperse an assembly or arrest its participants, as protections
apply to all peaceful assemblies (not only to ‘lawful’ assemblies). The full enjoyment of the right of peaceful
assembly is not compatible with either authorization regimes, or notification regimes that operate as a de-
facto authorization requirement, and any such requirements should be repealed.
Sometimes, certain categories of assembly are defined so as to exclude them from the notification
requirement (or to subject them to a different regulatory regime altogether), such as sporting, cultural or
religious events. In some countries different requirements may apply depending on whether an assembly will
be “static” or “moving” (Czechia, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, UK). These categories and definitions privilege
certain types of assembly over others. This research found that most of the 21 countries analysed have
mandatory notification regimes for some types of assembly in national law at federal and/or state or canton
level. Only in Ireland is notification voluntary for all forms of assembly.
Several countries stipulate time limits within which notice must be given, ranging from 24 hours (Finland,
some municipalities in the Netherlands), to 28 days (for public processions) (UK/ Northern Ireland and
Scotland). Some jurisdictions establish even longer time frames – 30 days – for prior authorization
(Switzerland/ Geneva canton). Some countries have in place burdensome notification requirements which
could constitute barriers to the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly. For example, the authorities in
Türkiye require an assembly to have a committee appointed, composed of at least seven people above 18
years of age, and among other things, a copy of the organizers’ criminal records. Despite the general
mandatory notification regime in place, foreigners attending assemblies need to seek authorization from
authorities for an assembly, which points to discriminatory provisions in the law. In Italy, the identity of those
designated to speak at assemblies is required in addition to organizers’ details. In Hungary, organizers must
wait 48 hours after submitting the notification before they can publicly advertise the assembly, limiting the
time available to mobilize participants. Many countries require information about security or facilitation
arrangements, as well as related arrangements to be put in place for assemblies. In Hungary, organizers
must designate persons to assist in maintaining order or security for the assembly. In some countries,
notification must include information on measures taken by the organizer to ensure the safety of the
assembly, its peaceful character, or its compliance with the law (Czechia, the Netherlands, Poland, Serbia,
Spain, UK).
Out of the 21 countries examined, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, and Switzerland have what most closely
resembles an authorization regime, at least for some types of events. This requires organizers to make an
application for an official permit to hold an assembly. Slovenia has a mandatory notification regime in place
for most types of events, however an authorization regime exists for assemblies in some circumstances,
related to ‘exceptional use of public road’ or if the number of participants exceeds 3,000 people. The
proposed legislation in Luxembourg, while presented as a ‘notification regime’, would de facto continue to
operate as an authorization regime.
International human rights obligations require that the process of informing authorities about protests is free
of charge, and this was found to be the case in nearly all the countries studied, with some exceptions. For
example, an application for authorization requires organizers to pay a fee in Sweden (approximately EUR
30); In the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, organizers are required to pay a fee (between CHF 200 and 500,
approximately EUR 205 to 510) if the request for an assembly is submitted less than 30 days prior to the day
when it is intended to take place.
Some countries allow for the possibility of administrative or even criminal sanctions for failure to notify/seek
authorization, failure to abide by the requirements of the notification or authorization regimes, or for
attending assemblies that have not been notified or authorized by authorities (administrative sanctions:
Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Germany (if false information is provided), Luxembourg, Slovenia (if not all
required information is provided), Spain; criminal sanctions: France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye, UK). Such punitive approaches run
counter to the emphasis in international human rights law that the role of the authorities is to protect and
facilitate the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly. Provisions which leave open the possibility of
criminal sanctions, or any other undue sanctions, on organizers for failure to notify should be repealed.
Moreover, unless enforcement of a notification requirement is itself shown to be necessary and proportionate
to achieving a legitimate aim, the imposition of any sanction merely for failure to notify the authorities will
constitute an unjustified interference with (and thus a violation of) the right of peaceful assembly.
Some countries have provisions in their legislation that allow for an assembly to be dispersed if notification or
authorization requirements are not met (Belgium, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Poland, Serbia, Türkiye). Organizing or participating in an unnotified assembly should not lead to criminal or
any other undue sanctions.
Spontaneous assemblies (those responding or reacting to current events, for which it is not feasible to
provide advance notice within the usual time frame/ procedure) should also not be dispersed due to a failure
to notify. Spontaneous gatherings should be considered an expected form of civic participation, they should
be facilitated and protected in the same way as assemblies that are planned in advance and should be
exempted from prior requirements. However, only seven countries (Czechia, Finland, Greece, Hungary,
Poland, Serbia, Slovenia) explicitly protect spontaneous protests in their national legislation. Other concerns
relate to the definition of what qualifies as a spontaneous assembly – definitions that may be either too vague
or too narrow – for example in Greece, Hungary, Finland, Serbia and Slovenia. In seven other countries,
spontaneous assemblies are protected on the basis of prevailing legal doctrine or jurisprudence (Austria,
Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, UK). However, in practice, the discretion available to the
authorities can still lead to undue regulation of spontaneous events. Some measure of protection, or a
simplified procedure, applies to spontaneous assemblies in Luxembourg, Spain and Switzerland. In the
Netherlands and Portugal, while there is no specific protection for spontaneous assemblies in law, in
practice generally they are allowed to go ahead.
- UNWARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE BURDENS IMPOSED ON ORGANIZERS OF ASSEMBLIES
This research exposed a wide spectrum of often excessive and unwarranted obligations, restrictions and
problematic liability provisions that are imposed on organizers of peaceful assemblies. As detailed above,
failure to provide notification or seek authorization brings administrative and criminal sanctions on organizers
in some of the countries examined.
In some countries, the legislation restricts the possibility to be an organizer to certain ‘citizens’ (at times
including European Union citizens) (Austria, Czechia, Hungary, Türkiye) or places age restrictions which can
affect children’s ability to organize protests (see more below).
Many of the obligations and restrictions imposed on organizers across the countries analysed are
unwarranted and excessive. They fail to meet the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality
established under international law, including when they are based on vague or ambiguous provisions.
Furthermore, they are discriminatory in nature.
Some countries’ laws place obligations on organizers to maintain security and order during assemblies
(Czechia, Finland, Hungary, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye), including the duty (or being
called on by authorities) to organize and/or pay or contribute to costs for private security and/or stewarding
services (Finland, Serbia, Sweden, Slovenia). The research uncovered alarming provisions and practices
across countries that raise concerns about additional costs being levied on organizers in order to exercise the
right of peaceful assembly, for example for the costs of public services at an assembly – such as street
cleaning, policing and/or security and provision of emergency services (Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Sweden, Slovenia, Switzerland). In some countries, organizers are burdened with additional liabilities for the
actions of others and corresponding costs (Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, Greece, Poland, Spain, Türkiye).
Assembly organizers (and participants) should never be liable for the actions of others, but only for their own
unlawful conduct.
In some of the countries however, provisions were identified allowing for the defence of ‘reasonable excuse’
or similar arguments, which can be used by organizers to limit their liability (Austria, Greece, Hungary,
Spain). With the exception of Italy, there does not appear to be a requirement for organizers to obtain public
liability insurance for assemblies. At times, organizers are made responsible for bringing public assemblies to
an end and/or dispersing the participants (Finland, Hungary, Serbia).
The function of maintaining public order and safety is non-delegable and should always remain the
responsibility of state agencies. The attempt to delegate it to organizers and stewards amounts to an
abdication by state authorities of their positive obligations to actively protect and facilitate the right of
peaceful assembly. Legally requiring organizers to contribute towards costs of policing or security, or public
cleaning or medical services, or to appoint stewards, is incompatible with states’ obligations.
While engaging in dialogue with relevant law enforcement authorities may sometimes help de-escalate
tensions (and thus constitute good practice), such dialogue must not be a requirement but should always
rather be voluntary. Protesters should not be compelled to enter into a collaborative working relationship with
the authorities, for example, by being required to relay or announce messages from the authorities to
protesters (such as an order to disperse), or to inform the police of unlawful conduct by participants.
Imposing unnecessary or excessive burdens on organizers, including administrative and criminal sanctions
for failing to abide by undue restrictions and obligations directly contravenes the UN Human Rights
Committee’s assertion that “States are obliged … not to prohibit, restrict, block, disperse or disrupt peaceful
assemblies without compelling justification, nor to sanction participants or organizers without legitimate
cause.” It may also result in the suppression of conduct which is protected by international and regional
human rights standards. The application of sanctions, including of a criminal nature, on organizers and/or
participants in peaceful assemblies, discourages participation and can exert a significant chilling effect,
which itself can amount to a violation of the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.
- SWEEPING RESTRICTIONS ON ASSEMBLIES BASED ON TIME, PLACE, AND CONTENT
In recent years, many governments in Europe have imposed sweeping restrictions on protests purporting to
protect public health and public order,
Amnesty International’s research shows that the reasons given for these restrictions by authorities were often
spurious, or the restrictions were not proportionate to achieve a legitimate public interest objective.
Governments often used “national security” and “public order” as pretexts to crack down on peaceful
dissent. For example, they used the Covid-19 pandemic to pass emergency legislation that restricted
protests beyond the strict exigencies of the situation.
These violations of the right of peaceful assembly did not, however, occur only in relation to these
exceptional events or perceived threats. A closer analysis shows that laws and policies across Europe grant
broad powers and a wide discretionary margin to domestic authorities to impose disproportionate restrictions
based on the time, place, and content of public assemblies, and these restrictions are used regularly to
hinder peaceful assemblies across the region. While most countries do not impose any time-related blanket
bans on protests, some countries do restrict assemblies to certain days or times. For example, assemblies
are restricted to daytime (Portugal, Serbia, Türkiye), not permitted in some locations on certain days
(Belgium/ Brussels) or limited to certain times (Portugal for parades and processions). In Poland, priority is
afforded to so-called ‘cyclical assemblies’ effectively imposing a blanket ban on any other assembly planned
to take place at the same time and place.
In some countries protests can never take place in certain areas, for example in the vicinity of government
buildings, parliaments and/or other public institutions (Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Germany,
Portugal, Türkiye and UK). In other countries, including the Netherlands, local guidelines designate certain
areas as protest-free zones. These laws often result in disproportionate restrictions on public assemblies,
especially when their implementation operates similarly to blanket bans, for example when assemblies in
those areas are routinely not allowed. In several other states, including Hungary, Ireland, Italy and Serbia,
domestic laws allow the authorities to designate certain areas as protest-free zones. Many countries have
legislation that empowers the authorities to move, reroute, restrict, or limit organizers and participants’
movements during a protest, which may have also a consequence on the choice of location (Belgium,
Czechia, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden,
Switzerland, Türkiye, UK). While some of these laws prescribe detailed and narrow circumstances under
which the location can be restricted, in others the authorities have wide discretion (Italy, Türkiye). Cases of
unlawful and discriminatory restrictions on assembly locations have been documented (Austria, Finland,
France, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland, Türkiye).
No restrictions should be imposed on an assembly except in a very limited range of circumstances.
Restrictions should be considered an exception, and the state authorities are responsible for justifying them,
by ensuring they comply with the principles of legality, proportionality, and necessity to achieve a legitimate
objective in concrete circumstances. Disproportionate restrictions violate the rights of organizers and
participants in assemblies and are likely to dissuade others from exercising their rights in the future (the so-
called ‘chilling effect’). This includes blanket bans which are a sweeping one-size-fits-all form of restriction
that prevent certain categories of assembly and/or assemblies at certain times, or in certain places from
taking place.
International standards specify that (necessary) restrictions should be based only on the time, place or
manner of an assembly, without regard to the message that it seeks to convey (the principle that restrictions
must be ‘content neutral’). However, most countries do not explicitly refer to any such principle in their
national legislation. In some countries, the (perceived) identity of protest organizers and participants, as well
as the political causes they mobilize for or the content of their messages – which authorities have framed, for
example, as “threats” to public order or morals – has influenced the restrictions imposed. In practice, many
countries seem to differentiate in a discriminatory manner between different protest movements, groups,
organizers and participants. According to the findings, authorities have often justified these restrictions by
making inferences to harmful racial or gender-based stereotypes and tropes, which point to deeply
entrenched institutional racism, homophobia, transphobia and other forms of discrimination. Rather than
countering racism and discrimination, as required by international and regional human rights standards,
European governments reinforce and entrench them by failing to ensure the enjoyment of right of peaceful
assembly to everyone, including to people who systematically face racism and discrimination.
Content-based restrictions are often imposed on protests organized by or in solidarity with marginalized
groups, such as Black people, Arab people or people belonging to other racialized groups, LGBTI people,
and migrants, asylum seekers or refugees, and are often based on discriminatory and harmful stereotypes.
This violates the prohibition of racism and all forms of discrimination.
Amnesty International’s research has identified a worrying pattern across Europe – Austria, Belgium,
Czechia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Serbia, Switzerland, UK – where public
assemblies organized to express solidarity with Palestinian people have been banned and/or
disproportionately restricted; certain chants, Palestinian flags, keffiyehs and other symbols were banned;
proceeded to dispersing peaceful protests camps, including when did not result in serious and sustained
disruption; and protesters also reported excessive use of force and arbitrary detentions. The spurious
grounds of ‘public order’ or ‘public safety’ used to ban or severely restrict Palestinian solidarity
demonstrations fail to comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, but also entrench
racial prejudice and stereotyping, and raise serious concerns regarding the failure of European countries to
combat racism and all other forms of discrimination and expose institutionalized racism towards Arab people
and Muslim people.
Restrictions were also put in place by most countries during the Covid-19 pandemic, sometimes through the
adoption of emergency laws by governments that circumvented parliamentary scrutiny. On several
occasions, courts declared such decrees entirely or partly unconstitutional, or reversed newly implemented
legislation. Numerous countries banned all protests and gatherings, in particular during the first phase of the
lockdowns. They restricted assemblies either by limiting their size, not allowing moving assemblies, or by
using people’s vaccination/immunity status to restrict attendance once vaccines were available. While many
of the measures have since been abolished in most countries, some powers and/or restrictions introduced as
emergency measures during the pandemic continue at the time of writing in some countries (Italy, the
Netherlands).
- CONCERNS REGARDING POLICING OF PROTESTS
Law enforcement agencies have a duty to respect, protect and facilitate protests. Facilitation must not
however be understood to mean the ‘management’ of protests – the peaceful exercise of the right to protest
should not be ‘controlled’. Rather, genuine facilitation includes both the obligation to refrain from undue
interference as well as taking measures to ensure the effective exercise of assembly rights, including
enabling and supporting participants to protest as they intended. The obligations to facilitate and protect
extend to journalists, monitors, observers and others involved in monitoring and observation of protests. The
obligation includes the creation of an enabling framework, in both law and practice, to ensure everyone can
exercise their rights, without discrimination.
The presence of police officials is often not required, especially in the context of small public assemblies
where there is no (or a low) risk of violence. Therefore, rather than starting from the point of deploying police
at protests as a default measure, states should reflect and engage in efforts to reimagine the facilitation of
assemblies and alternative methods to deploying police and the use of force. This is particularly important as
structural racism and discrimination are pervasive in law enforcement across Europe and specific
individuals, groups and communities have been systematically on the receiving end of stereotyping,
discriminatory policing, disproportionate restrictions, unlawful and excessive use of force, in a context of lack
of accountability for perpetrators of violations.
Where police officers are deployed, they should always have tactics at their disposal to help facilitate protests
to ensure that participants can effectively exercise their right of peaceful assembly. These include engaging
in dialogue with protest organizers and participants – on a voluntary basis for organizers and participants – to
de-escalate any conflict that may occur. This can help reduce outbreaks of violence and the need to use
force.
There should always be a presumption in favour of holding assemblies, and authorities should seek
facilitation as a core objective, try to establish trust, be guided by the exercise of restraint and avoid/minimize
tensions and the need to resort to the use of force. When force is deployed, police must ensure its use is
exhaustively regulated by domestic law and employed strictly only when necessary and proportional to the
legitimate objective. Any use of force must be guided by the principles of precaution, non-discrimination and
accountability, and fully respect human rights, including the right to life and the prohibition of torture and
other ill-treatment.
The countries reviewed in this report have laws and regulations governing the use of force by the police. The
principles of necessity and proportionality are also reflected in general terms in the laws. However, most of
the countries did not have specific regulations on the use of force in the context of assemblies. Most
countries do not explicitly outline in law an approach for de-escalation before resorting to the use of force
during a protest. Few have detailed regulations, and even when available, they are not publicly available
which makes their compliance with international human rights standards difficult to assess (Ireland,
Greece).
International human rights law and standards outline the specific and limited circumstances in which less-
lethal weapons (LLW) can be used during protests, given the high potential for harm to peaceful protesters or
bystanders, including the risk of serious injury or death. Yet only a few countries have specific legislation on
equipment, weapons and tactics for policing assemblies – mostly concerning generic use of force, dispersal
and containment. Some countries’ legislation on this subject – for example in Türkiye and parts of
Switzerland and the UK – is extremely broad, leaving decisions about when to use force and what weapon(s)
to deploy to the discretion of the individual law enforcement officer. Where specific guidance exists on the
use of LLW, it is often not public. Of the 21 countries examined, only Serbia has detailed, public regulations
on specific less-lethal weapons and the circumstances under which these can be used, including in
assemblies. However, the specific thresholds and risks are not clearly articulated. The protocol for the use of
kinetic impact projectiles (foam rounds) has only been partially disclosed by authorities in Spain.
The devastating impact of LLW has long been documented by Amnesty International in countries such as
Belgium, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Serbia, Spain, Türkiye and UK. In the countries
examined in the report, during the period 2020 to September 2023, a very high number of examples of
excessive and/or unnecessary use of force were reported during protests. This resulted in serious and
sometimes permanent injuries among protesters, some of them journalists covering protests, including
broken bones or teeth (France, Germany, Greece, Italy), loss of hearing (Greece), burns (Greece), loss of a
hand (France), loss of a testicle (Spain), and damage to the eyes and severe head trauma (Spain). In some
cases, injuries were inflicted upon children (Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Serbia,
Slovenia, Switzerland). In some countries, incidents of use of force were reported that amount to torture or
other ill-treatment, including when officers beat or kicked protesters who were already lying on the ground
and/or offering no resistance (France, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain).
A tactic often used by police to control assemblies is the containment of protesters (sometimes also termed
“kettling”). At least eight countries examined have no regulations on containment or so-called ‘kettling’
tactics. Those with regulations or jurisprudence in place allowing for containment tactics in the policing of
assemblies include France, Germany, Slovenia, Türkiye and the UK. Only Hungary outlaws kettling as a
tactic for dispersal. In practice, most of the countries examined use such tactics, often not in line with their
national regulatory framework (where these exist). In some countries, kettling is commonly used by police for
intelligence-gathering purposes, by compelling peaceful protesters, and even bystanders, to disclose
information such as names and addresses as they leave the containment, with a chilling effect on future
protest participants.
In light of its inherent detrimental effect on the right of peaceful assembly, as well as on the right to freedom
of movement and, in some instances, the right to liberty, Amnesty International’s position on containment,
similarly to that of the UN Human Rights Committee, recognizes that while containment may very
exceptionally be used, this should only be to address actual violence or an imminent threat of violence from
the specific individuals being contained, where their containment is necessary and proportionate in the
circumstances, and with a view to avoiding dispersal of the entire assembly.
Some of the countries examined allow for the deployment of military personnel to police protests, mostly
though in limited and/or exceptional circumstances (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Serbia,
Switzerland, Türkiye, UK). Military should not be used to police assemblies, and their involvement is
inherently problematic due to the military’s lack of training in the protection of assemblies or de-escalation,
and their equipment which is not appropriate for assemblies (as designed for combat operations). Their
training, experience and modus operandi is generally oriented to the conduct of hostilities in which the use
of force, including lethal force, is often the first choice of action. In the Netherlands, although the legislation
does not permit the deployment of military to assemblies, in practice this has occurred. Most recently,
military personnel were deployed during the 2023 climate protest and peaceful blockade of A12 motorway in
the Hague and climate actions at two airports in 2022 and 2023.
Dispersal of an assembly must be a measure of last resort, in line with principle of necessity and
proportionality. Nevertheless, only Finland, Germany, Spain and Sweden recognize this explicitly in law. In
some of the other countries, legislation or policy guidance that includes the principles of legality, necessity
and proportionality would however also apply to dispersal of assemblies. An assembly should only ever be
dispersed if it is no longer ‘peaceful’; that is, if there is “widespread and serious violence”, or an imminent
threat of such violence, which cannot be contained by more proportionate measures such as, for example,
individual arrests. Isolated or sporadic acts of violence do not justify dispersal; nor does non-compliance with
notification requirements or other illegitimate prior restrictions (including authorization requirements). In
exceptional circumstances, an assembly that is peaceful may be dispersed, but only if the disruption caused
by the assembly has reached the high cumulative threshold of being both ‘serious and sustained’ such
evaluation to be undertaken on a case-by-case basis. Causing ‘disruption’ alone is not a legitimate reason for
dispersing protesters, and authorities must tolerate disruption, which is inherent to protests. Whenever the
dispersal of an assembly is considered a necessary and proportionate response, law enforcement officials
should avoid the use of force.
In some of the countries examined, law enforcement officers dispersed assemblies both in cases where
dispersal was not lawful, as well as in cases where it was legitimate, but the means deployed for the
dispersal including the use of force were unnecessary and/or disproportionate (Austria, Finland, France,
Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Türkiye).
Several countries have legislation in place that permits administrative detention, including Belgium, France,
Germany and Switzerland and such legislation is increasingly used in those countries to prevent people from
participating in protests. For example, in Germany, administrative detention has frequently been used
against climate activists in the state of Bavaria, Berlin and North Westphalia with activists being detained, for
example, for up to 30 days (in Bavaria). Amnesty International and international human rights mechanisms
have repeatedly criticized these laws as not meeting international human rights standards and have urged
the federal states to amend them. Cases of preventive detention were documented also in France, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Serbia, Switzerland, and Türkiye. Another reason given for detaining people in the
context of assemblies is to conduct identity checks at police stations, including in France, Greece, the
Netherlands, Slovenia and Switzerland.
In some countries, police use ‘stop and search’ practices to search participants in, and on the way to,
peaceful assemblies. Many of the countries examined have legislation which allows for ‘stop and search’ or
‘stop and frisk’ practices without requiring a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence or intent to commit
an offence (France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Serbia, Slovenia and
Switzerland). In practice, in many countries there are reports that protesters are stopped and searched by
police before, during and after protests, including in Czechia, France, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands,
Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Türkiye and parts of the UK (England, Wales and Scotland), even where this
contravenes national legislation. Such practices are not in compliance with international human rights law
and standards as they violate the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality and carry the risk of
discriminatory application. They infringe on the right of peaceful assembly and could have a chilling effect on
protesters. In particular, for those who are already at heightened risk of arbitrary checks, racial profiling and
other violations of their rights by law enforcement officials, as has been widely documented, including by
Amnesty International to occur to Black people, Arab people, Roma and people belonging to other racialized
groups.
In some of the countries, laws on policing have established some requirements for officers to observe human
rights while exercising their duties and the possibility to attend human rights compliant (general) training.
However, the evidence gathered from the 21 countries analysed suggests a very patchy and inconsistent
approach to ensuring human rights-compliant policing of assemblies across Europe. To ensure that the
policing of assemblies is human rights-compliant, law enforcement officials need to be specifically trained in
the policing of assemblies, and only those trained should be deployed for that purpose. Training on policing
of protests must underscore the standing obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, and must
include specific guidelines on combating racial discrimination by police.
- CONCERNS REGARDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS PERPETRATED DURING ASSEMBLIES
The principle of accountability requires states to ensure that the actions of law enforcement officials are
subject to review and that any human rights violations committed in the context of an assembly are
redressed. Nevertheless, Amnesty International’s research found cases of police impunity or lack of
accountability in numerous countries including Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Germany, Italy, Portugal,
Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Türkiye and the UK.
Prerequisites to ensuring police officers’ accountability for their actions during assemblies include, among
other things: publishing information on chain-of-command structures to allow identification of command
responsibility in each circumstance; ensuring that individual officers can be identified; not preventing anyone
from making recordings or taking photographs of police during assemblies; and giving legal protection to
independent assembly monitors, observers and media workers. The research found numerous
contraventions of each of these prerequisites across the countries examined.
In law, none of the examined countries provide for immunity from liability for police while performing their
official duties. Nonetheless, Amnesty International found that accountability systems in several countries are
set up or implemented in such a way that can lead, in practice, to lack of accountability for human rights
violations committed by law enforcement officials. For example, in administrative proceedings in Spain,
police reports are presumed to be truthful, unless disproven by the claimant, and in Luxembourg, all acts by
the administration are presumed to be lawful unless an administrative judge suspends this presumption. In
Austria and France, the prevailing climate of impunity acts as an effective deterrent for victims to seek
justice for police abuses. In Türkiye, the legally required authorisation to prosecute members of law
enforcement is often not granted by the responsible administrative authority. Other barriers to accessing
legal proceedings include the length and cost of proceedings, for example in Finland, Greece and
Switzerland; and the risk of counter proceedings including in Austria, Germany, Greece, Spain and
Switzerland. Together, these obstacles can result in a significant further deterrent effect preventing victims
being able to access justice.
Police accountability mechanisms and procedures take various forms in the countries examined. Internal
investigations conducted by the police authorities themselves or by their supervisory body (where this exists)
often remain untransparent, suffer from undue delays, and can be in conflict with judicial proceedings (i.e.
can determine their outcome (Austria)). Such internal processes cannot be independent and might thus risk
be reproducing institutional racism and other biases within police institutions. External oversight bodies set
up to monitor the police, while established in most countries, also show shortcomings in relation to their
competence and/or independence and/or impartiality. Committees, inquiries, and investigations that are
either parliament-led or government-led may be underused and/or ineffective.
In none of the countries examined are assembly observers legally protected and in several of them, the lack
of clear guidelines has meant that treatment of monitors and journalists is left to the discretion of individual
police officers. Cases of problematic treatment by law enforcement of protest observers or monitors, as well
as of journalists, were reported in Austria, Finland, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Switzerland.
- CONCERNS REGARDING STATES’ RESPONSE TO PEACEFUL ACTS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AT ASSEMBLIES
Throughout history, people around the world have used civil disobedience to contest unfair laws and
challenge human rights abuses. In recent years, a growing number of people, organizations and
transnational social movements have carried out peaceful acts of civil disobedience targeting states and
business corporations to highlight concerns about the climate emergency and to formulate demands to
protect the environment.
Amnesty International’s research found a recent and concerning pattern of states often framing civil
disobedience as a threat to public order and/or national security and denying that these acts are protected
under international human rights law and standards. Additionally, Amnesty International’s research has
documented harsh responses by states to peaceful acts of civil disobedience, raising concerns regarding the
respect of the rights to freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion, and peaceful assembly.
Civil disobedience means an act – carried out individually or in a group – which involves the premeditated
breaking of the law, for reasons of conscience or because it is perceived to be the most effective way to raise
awareness, express social or political dissent or bring about change. Acts of peaceful civil disobedience can
include a range of activities such as media stunts, sit-ins, occupations and protest camps and other tactics
involving methods of disruption through direct and non-violent means.
International human rights standards clarify that regardless of the infringement of a country’s law, acts of civil
disobedience involving gatherings of individuals constitute a form of assembly and, when enacted in a non-
violent manner, are protected by the right of peaceful assembly. This protection means that state responses,
including any restrictions, on peaceful acts of civil disobedience must adhere to the principles of legality,
proportionality and necessity.
None of the 21 countries examined in this report provides explicit legal protection for peaceful acts of civil
disobedience as a legitimate exercise of the right of peaceful assembly or any other right. The jurisprudence
of domestic courts on civil disobedience is not consistent either across the countries, or in some cases,
within the same country (Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, UK). In the Netherlands, despite some
rulings against peaceful acts of civil disobedience, other courts have recognized such actions as a legitimate
form of peaceful assembly. In Germany, while some courts acquitted climate justice activists who engaged in
civil disobedience, others have punished similar acts with administrative and criminal sanctions.
The increased visibility of peaceful acts of civil disobedience in Europe provides governments with an
opportunity to assess whether their responses are human rights compliant. This assessment requires, as a
pre-condition, the recognition from states that peaceful acts of civil disobedience are protected – as per
countries’ obligations under international human rights law.
The research identified a wide range of restrictions and sanctions on peaceful acts of civil disobedience in
many of the examined countries, which raise human rights concerns. These restrictions include, forUNDER PROTECTED AND OVER RESTRICTED
THE STATE OF THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IN 21 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
Amnesty International 31
example, unnecessary dispersals by police, including through use of excessive force; arrests based on laws
lacking legal clarity; and harsh charges that were at times upheld by courts.
The fact that peaceful acts of civil disobedience entail the breaking of a domestic law does not per se
warrant their dispersal. The dispersal of activists who engaged in these acts must comply with international
human rights law and standards applicable to any peaceful assembly.
Peaceful acts of civil disobedience may result in some level of disruption, for example when they block roads
and traffic. However, causing disruption alone is not a legitimate reason for dispersing peaceful protesters.
Indeed, the dispersal of a peaceful assembly is a measure of last resort that may only be justified to respond
to assemblies that are no longer ‘peaceful’, or if the disruption caused by the assembly is both serious and
sustained. Disruption is inherent in protests and as long as it remains peaceful, the authorities must tolerate
the disruption and must only impose restrictions in narrowly defined circumstances to protect the rights of
others.
Amnesty International’s research – in Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK – highlighted
that protesters who engage in peaceful acts of civil disobedience are usually dispersed by law enforcement
officials, including through the excessive use of force, often shortly after the start of their actions, and
certainly, long before they caused “serious and sustained” disruption. In some instances, law enforcement
officials used excessive force while carrying out these dispersals. Peaceful protesters were often arrested
and, in some cases, charged.
Acts of peaceful civil disobedience involve the premeditated breaking of domestic law for reasons of
conscience or because it is perceived to be the most effective way to express dissent, get public attention or
stop human rights abuses. The domestic law being broken can fall into one or other of two categories: (a)
laws that conflict with international human rights law and standards e.g. legislation imposing a blanket ban
on protests, or criminalizing the holding of a demonstration without the authorities’ prior authorization, or (b)
laws that do not per se violate international laws and standards. The assessment of the necessity or
proportionality of any sanctions and restrictions on civil disobedience, including criminal sanctions, depends
on which category – (a) or (b) – the domestic law being broken falls within.
The imposition of restrictions, including criminal or administrative charges and sanctions, on acts that break
a domestic law which contravenes international human rights law and standards (category (a) above) are
usually unnecessary and disproportionate. Instead of arresting, prosecuting and sanctioning those involved
in such acts, states should repeal or substantially amend the respective laws to bring them in line with
international human rights law and standards.
Amnesty International has identified such laws in at least 16 of the 21 countries analysed (Austria, Belgium,
France, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Sweden,
Switzerland, Türkiye, UK). The most common such laws that are present across the region include vaguely
formulated provisions punishing “disturbing peace” or “disrupting traffic”; laws imposing a blanket ban on
wearing face coverings at public assemblies; and laws criminalizing or otherwise penalizing conduct that is
protected by the right of peaceful assembly, such as organizing or participating in “unannounced
demonstrations”, as well as laws punishing failure to adhere to an authorization regime in instances where
the authorities need to grant permission for assemblies to take place.
When peaceful acts of civil disobedience break a domestic law which contains a prohibition or other
restriction which is compliant with international human rights law and standards (category (b) above), and
the act was conducted due to reasons of conscience or the belief that it was the most effective way to
achieve change, any restrictions must comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality.
Any sanctions must be commensurate with the recognizable offence committed, and authorities should
consider the different elements of the actions on a case-by-case basis, including the intent of the action and
its overall disruptive impact. When using criminal law provisions in response to civil disobedience, states
must ensure that the criminal justice system is used only to the ‘minimum amount needed to protect society’
(the principle of minimum intervention).
Amnesty International’s research has identified a worrying pattern where individuals involved in peaceful acts
of civil disobedience were often arrested, charged and prosecuted, even in instances where their acts did not
threaten a public interest nor result in harmful behaviour in (Czechia, France, Finland, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, UK, Türkiye). While charges
were subsequently dropped in some cases, in others, peaceful protesters faced administrative and also
criminal sanctions, including risk of custodial sentences. In at least three countries – Germany, Italy and the
UK – peaceful environmental activists received prison sentences for acts of civil disobedience. In Italy the
prison sentence was however suspended.
The authorities in some countries – including Germany, Italy, Spain and Türkiye – have resorted to terrorism-
related provisions, and laws related to combating organized crime, and national security, to target activists
engaged in protests and peaceful acts of civil disobedience. Prosecutions based on these provisions raise
concerns regarding the weaponization of ‘public order’ and ‘national security’ as justifications for silencing
dissent and disincentivizing the legitimate exercise of human rights. As well as criminal sanctions, various
national authorities have introduced and/or used a wide range of administrative measures and preventive
provisions that allow people to be banned from certain places and activities – and in some cases detained –
to prevent them from participating in future acts of civil disobedience (Germany, Italy, UK). In Germany,
administrative detention for up to 30 days has been increasingly used against climate activists to prevent
them from participating in protests. In Italy, orders banning presence (i.e. ‘foglio di via’ and ‘DASPO orders’)
have been used to prevent people from certain places and activities, and in the UK, a new administrative
measure was introduced – Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs) which can be imposed by a court
on someone convicted of a protest-related offence to prevent them from committing a future protest-related
offence or causing ‘serious disruption’ to others (with attendant liability for breaching the SPDO). Such
administrative measures stand to violate the principles of legality and the presumption of innocence and are
at odds with fair trial safeguards and may also violate the rights to liberty and to freedom of movement.
- CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS TO CHILDREN’S ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHT OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY
Children are among the groups or categories of people identified by international and regional human rights
treaties as requiring special attention and protection, including in the context of protests. Children frequently
experience discrimination based on various intersecting aspects of their identity as well as their age, such as
their gender, if they are racialized, disabled or migration status, amongst others.
In recent years, children in Europe (and around the world) have led and participated in major protests
demanding climate justice, racial equality, social justice and better education among other issues. Such
increased involvement by children and young people highlights the growing need for concerted efforts from
states to respect, protect and fulfil, including by facilitating, children’s rights at protests. Children, like adults,
have the right to voice their concerns and put forward demands, and to be able and enabled to participate in
society, including by being able to protest safely and without discrimination.
Nevertheless, across Europe, Amnesty International has recorded numerous instances of children’s right of
peaceful assembly being restricted, denied or violated. Several states have failed both to recognize and to
afford children and young people the additional protections to which they are entitled during protests.
Children and young people have been shamed, attacked, punished or threatened with punitive measures for
standing up for their rights. They have been unlawfully arrested and detained and have suffered excessive
use of force at the hands of law enforcement officers.
The rhetoric around children and young people’s participation in protests included negative and
inflammatory statements from politicians, the authorities and other actors (Belgium, France, Germany,
Poland, Portugal). Several of the 21 countries examined prescribe minimum age requirements for organizing
protests: Czechia, Finland, Hungary, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and Türkiye.
International expert monitoring bodies called in recent years on Hungary, Türkiye and UK to amend
legislation to ensure that children do not face repression, including through criminalization, in relation to the
exercise of their right of freedom of peaceful assembly, including through their involvement in activism.
Amnesty International’s research uncovered a variety of concerning examples of criminalization, penalization
and detention of children in Greece, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland. In some countries –
including Poland, Portugal and some cantons in Switzerland – children experienced penalties and threats of
punishment at schools in relation to their participation at protests. Yet, the Swiss cantons of Bern and
Lucerne (Switzerland) are implementing more positive solutions that allow children time off school and, in
Bern, children are encouraged to share their experiences of political participation in class. The research also
uncovered cases of sanctions being applied, or potentially being applicable, to parents in relation to their
children’s participation in protests (Poland, the Netherlands, UK). In the UK, some children, and particularly
Muslim and racialized children, increasingly fear being sanctioned, and parents also report self-censoring
and fearing showing solidarity or speaking out about Palestinian human rights in a context where authorities
have widened and deepened the use of the much criticized ‘Prevent’ Programme.
International human rights mechanisms advanced in recent years specific recommendations to Czechia,
France, Slovenia and the UK to amend their legislation on policing and use of force in relation to children in
protest. Amnesty’s examination of the 21 countries also exposed reports about instances when children or
youths were harmed during protests. Instances of excessive use of force against children by police were
reported in Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Serbia, and Switzerland.
Amnesty International’s research has not been able to identify any specific piece of legislation, policy or
procedural framework in the examined countries that address the presence of children at protests, how
facilitation should occur when children are present, nor the use of equipment and tactics when children are
present (including in relation to containment, dispersal, use of equipment including less-lethal weapons.
Moreover, in none of the countries did Amnesty International find any local or national guidelines or specific
police training on the rights and treatment by law enforcement officers of children in protests.
- CONCERNS REGARDING SURVEILLANCE, MONITORING, COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND STORING OF PROTESTERS’ DATA
Around Europe, states’ law enforcement and security agencies are increasingly using digital tools to carry out
targeted and mass surveillance of protesters; invade their privacy; and track, monitor, collect, analyse and
store their information. Often, several methods are used in conjunction, ranging from sophisticated
technologies such as facial recognition tools to low-tech yet highly intimidating techniques such as visiting
activists’ homes.
States have argued that surveillance programmes are necessary to safeguard national security and ensure
the protection of citizens. Amnesty International recognizes that states have obligations to protect the
security of citizens and, as a result, may sometimes legitimately (in accordance with law) need to conduct
covert surveillance, including the interception and monitoring of private communications.
However, it is worth noting that protest surveillance is an interference with people’s rights to privacy, freedom
of expression and peaceful assembly – one that can both undermine the facilitation of the right of peaceful
assembly and directly violate this right. To comply with states’ obligations under international human rights
standards, any legislation or practice allowing law enforcement agents to undertake protest-related
surveillance must contain safeguards adequate to prevent unwarranted restrictions or arbitrary intervention
in the exercise of rights and provide transparency and judicial oversight capable of preventing and
addressing abuses, and a chilling effect on the exercise of people’s rights.
According to the information retrieved for the research, all 21 countries examined appear to have codified in
law – to varying extents – the protection of the right to privacy as well as other rights that can be affected by
surveillance practices, including the rights of peaceful assembly and expression. However, the safeguards in
place in some of the countries – to prevent indiscriminate, unwarranted, unchecked, discriminatory or
otherwise unlawful surveillance – are sometimes inadequate to protect against all forms of surveillance that
undermine the right of peaceful assembly. The legal basis for the measures examined is often either missing
completely or is reliant on overly broad and generic powers in some countries, or the safeguards in place are
inadequate to ensure that surveillance is authorized and carried out in conformity with human rights
(Greece, UK). Moreover, abuses continue to occur in states where the law arguably does or should guard
against such surveillance practices (the Netherlands), and some states have continued to legislatively
expand surveillance powers to the detriment of protest rights (France).
Amnesty International found that video/photo surveillance cameras are being used increasingly by police in
numerous countries, with concerns around the necessity and proportionality of their deployment and the
legality of retaining the recordings for future use (Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg (proposal), the Netherlands).
Facial recognition technology is another fast-growing method used by the police to conduct surveillance at
assemblies. Among EU countries, police in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the
Netherlands and Slovenia, among others, already employ facial recognition technology (FRT) in their
criminal investigations, and countries including Czechia, Portugal, Spain and Sweden are among those
which are expected to follow the trend. There has also been a recent and marked increase in the use of
facial recognition technology by law enforcement in the UK, including at protests. Amnesty International
believes that the use of FRT for identification amounts to indiscriminate mass surveillance and therefore, if
used in protests, it cannot be a proportionate interference with the rights that might be engaged (such as
privacy, freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly). All indiscriminate mass surveillance,
including FRT, fails to meet the test of necessity and proportionality and therefore violates international
human rights law. It also carries the risk of having a long-term chilling effect on the enjoyment of these rights
and may deter people from exercising such rights, including on discriminatory bases. No safeguards can
prevent the human rights harms that facial recognition inflicts, and it should therefore be banned outright.
The research uncovered concerning reports about practices related to law enforcement paying unjustified
visits to protesters’ homes, in some cases asking them not to attend planned protests (the Netherlands,
Poland, Serbia). Moreover, in some of the countries analysed there were concerning reports of undercover
police officers infiltrating protests social movements (the Netherlands, Spain). Concerns about the use of
undercover police against protesters remain also in the UK. Some states use social media monitoring to
collect information about participation in peaceful assemblies. In some cases, people have been prosecuted,
or threatened with prosecution, after being labelled as “organizers” simply for sharing information about
protests on social media which authorities monitored (France, the Netherlands, Poland, Serbia, Türkiye).
Under international human rights standards, restrictions or prohibitions on face coverings in public spaces,
including a ban on covering one’s face in the context of protests, are generally discriminatory in intent and
effect and will rarely be proportionate or necessary to achieve any permissible aims under international
human rights law. Such restrictions or prohibitions are also gendered and racist in the harm they inflict, for
example when they affect Muslim women and girls.
Under international human rights standards, a ban on covering one’s face in the context of protests should
only be lawful where there are “reasonable grounds for arrest”. Such situations could occur, for example,
when a person is engaging in or shows a clear intent to imminently engage in violence or if the face covering
constitutes a symbol or form of expression that is directly and predominantly associated with advocacy of
hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Assemblies and their participants
should be assumed to be peaceful, rather than posing a threat to public order, and the authorities must
demonstrate if this is not the case in specific instances. Nevertheless, in some countries Amnesty
International found a total or partial blanket restriction on face coverings in public places and/or in relation to
assemblies that appear to be discriminatory and disproportionate (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany,
Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland). In several of those countries, covering one’s face at a protest is
a criminal offence (France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, Türkiye).
- KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the research findings, Amnesty International has developed a number of recommendations
for states on each of the areas identified as a human rights concern which, if implemented, will assist states
to bring their policies, legislation and practices into compliance with their obligations under international
human rights law. The full lists of recommendations can be found in the relevant nine chapters of the report.
The following is a summary of Amnesty International’s key recommendations arising from this research.
States should:
- Bring domestic laws fully in line with international human rights law and standards by repealing or
substantially amending provisions prohibiting or criminalizing conduct that must be protected. This
should include, among other things, repealing provisions that establish authorization (or de facto
authorization) regimes, criminal sanctions for non-compliance with notification requirements, excessive
obligations and liabilities on organizers; unwarranted restrictions placed on the time, place and content
of assemblies including blanket bans; disproportionate restrictions on peaceful acts of civil
disobedience, including the widespread use of custodial sanctions; undue restrictions of children’s
protest rights; inappropriate application of counter terror laws or programmes, and unlawful
surveillance.
- Assess and tackle any discriminatory impact of laws, policies and practices on the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly for specific groups which may include, among others, those protesting for women’s
rights, LGBTI rights, Palestinian solidarity, climate justice and racial justice, as well as take action to
ensure the rights of those who experience heightened barriers to participation, including Black people,
Arab people, Roma or people belonging to other racialized groups, sex workers, people with uncertain
legal status, foreign nationals, people with disabilities, children and older people, among others.
- Address widespread impunity for human rights violations committed by law enforcement officials while
policing protests and prevent unnecessary and excessive use of force. To achieve this, domestic laws
and policies should detail the permissible circumstances and principles around the use of force during
assemblies, which must strictly respect the necessity and proportionality criteria, and the use and
prohibition of specific equipment and tactics involved in policing assemblies, especially those that are
capable of resulting in torture and other ill-treatment and other human rights violations. Moreover, the
authorities must establish independent oversight mechanisms with powers to conduct independent,
impartial, thorough, prompt and fair investigations into allegations of human rights violations by law
enforcement officials.
- Stop all stigmatizing discourse and rhetoric which fuels harmful stereotypes and portrays peaceful
protesters in a way that is likely to foster hostility and justify punitive measures against them. This
includes characterizing protesters as criminals, terrorists, threats to public order and security, or a
nuisance to be crushed.
- OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The misuse of surveillance by authorities to target peaceful protesters can violate their human rights,
including the right to privacy, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. It creates an environment of
intimidation, suspicion and fear, and can generate and amplify a chilling effect, as they deter people from
exercising their rights to freedom expression and peaceful assembly as they fear they could be identified,
tracked and suffer consequences for speaking out and peacefully demonstrating. While surveillance can be
a legitimate tool for use by states, it is paramount that it is subject to safeguards to prevent abuse and
misuse, including discrimination and/or disproportionate impact on racialized people and other groups at
heightened risk of state surveillance and violations of their human rights.
To support states’ review and remedy of the concerns outlined above, Amnesty International is making the
following recommendations urging States to:
- States should view peaceful assemblies and protesters not as threats that must be ‘monitored’ or
‘controlled’
– for example through intrusive surveillance – but as embodiments of the exercise of a
human right that the authorities, including law enforcement, have a legal obligation to protect,
respect and facilitate. States must ensure that any restrictions imposed on the exercise of the right of
peaceful assembly using surveillance, comply with the principles of legality, legitimate aim, necessity
and proportionality.
- States must ensure that activities related to peaceful protests are not criminalized; for example, the
dissemination of information regarding assemblies on social media should not be brought as
evidence to assert protesters’ liability as organizers.
- States must adequately regulate the permissible and legitimate purpose and specific conditions for
law enforcement taking photos and/or video footage at public assemblies in full compliance with data
protection and guarantees of privacy.
- States should ensure that the collection and processing of personal information of protesters (or
people in the vicinity of protests) through recording devices, closed-circuit television, undercover
policing, and other methods is conducted in compliance with the right to privacy, and that the use,
retention and processing of such data is done in accordance with data protection and human rights
standards and is publicly available.
- States must put in place necessary measures – legislative or otherwise -to end the use of mass or
otherwise unlawful surveillance.
- States must prevent and end any actions by the authorities or other actors that have, or can have, the
effect of intimidating and/or harassing peaceful protesters or prevent people from exercising their
right of peaceful assembly, such as unofficial or unwarranted home visits.
- States should examine the legal framework, including administrative regulations and internal policies
and practices that are relevant to data processing in the context of peaceful assemblies and ensure
they fully comply with international human rights standards, including those relating to the rights to
privacy, data protection and non-discrimination. States should monitor compliance of data
processing in the context of surveillance of peaceful assemblies and intervene when data processing
violates the rights of organizers and/or participants of peaceful assemblies. Where violations are
identified, these must be swiftly rectified to prevent future occurrence and addressed through
accountability and effective remedies.
- States should ensure that legislation and practice allow for the wearing of face coverings by assembly
participants, and recognize their right not to be discriminated, to protect their privacy and to
participate anonymously in peaceful assemblies.
- States should ban the use, development, production, sale and export of FRT and remote biometric
recognition technologies that enable mass surveillance and discriminatory targeted surveillance by
state agencies and private sector actors within their own jurisdictions, as technologies that are
fundamentally incompatible with international human rights law.
- Ban the use and trade in highly invasive spyware – whose functionality cannot be limited in line with
the requirements of proportionality or whose use cannot be independently audited. And impose a
moratorium on the use of all spywares until such time as a system of human rights safeguards is in
place capable of preventing abuse.
- The appropriate authorities should proactively make available to the public all relevant information,
including the overall legal framework concerning surveillance of protests; the entities authorized to
conduct surveillance; the procedures to be followed for authorizing surveillance, and for the use,
sharing, storage, and destruction of data acquired through surveillance; and statistics about the use
of such surveillance, including the number and type of investigations for which the use of
surveillance tools was requested, approved or denied. Authorities should guarantee the collection of
comprehensive disaggregated data to ensure that Black people, Arab people, Roma and people
belonging to other racialized groups are not specifically or disproportionately affected by these
technologies, particularly given the barriers marginalized groups experience to enjoy their rights to
peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, including patterns of institutionalized racism and
other forms of discrimination.
- States must, in most circumstances (except for example where it is patently impossible) proactively
inform all persons who have been subjected to surveillance of this fact, and the grounds upon which
it was conducted, the material collected and any potential remedies as soon as notification may be
made without jeopardizing the legitimate purpose of the surveillance. Such exceptions must be
recorded and verifiable.