Registration of Associations

The right to freedom of association relates not only to the right to form an association, but also guarantees the right of such an association freely to carry out its activities. a requirement for registration of associations will not, by itself, violate the requirements of article 22. The examination of any such requirement will focus on the conditions imposed upon registration, and the consequences of this, as was the case in Zvozskov v Belarus. The Committee there found that, in the absence of any reasons linked to the objectives under article 22(2), it was a violation of article 22 for Belarus to require, as a condition for registration, that an association be restricted in its activities to the exclusive representation and defence of the rights of its own members.119

in Korneenko v Belarus, the Committee was concerned with the prohibition against unregistered associations and the ability of registered associations to be dissolved. Dissolution of the group Civil initiatives was based, according to Belarus, on the improper use of equipment, received through foreign grants, for the production and conduct of ‘propaganda’ materials and activities; and deficiencies in the association’s documentation. The Committee noted that the first basis was disputed and that Belarus had failed to establish how this was necessary in pursuit

117 Lopez v Uruguay, Communication 52/1979, UN Doc CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979 (1981), para 13.

118 Lee v Republic of Korea, Communication 1119/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/84/ D/1119/2002 (2005), para 7.3. See also Belyatsky et al v Belarus, Communication 1296/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/90/D/1296/2004 (2007), para 7.3.

119 Zvozskov et al v Belarus, Communication 1039/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/88/

of any of the article 22(2) objectives. a s to the second basis, and taking into account the consequences of dissolution, it took the view that dissolution in response to deficient documentation was a disproportionate response by the State.120

Peaceful Assembly

Of import to the application of article 21 is the distinction to be made between the peaceful assembly of more than one person,121 and non-peaceful demonstrations. This was an issue considered within Kivenmaa v Finland. On the occasion of a visit of a foreign head of State, and his meeting with the President of Finland, the author and about twenty-five members of her organization, amid a larger crowd, gathered across from the Presidential Palace where the leaders were meeting, distributed leaflets and raised a banner critical of the human rights record of the visiting head of State. The police immediately took the banner down and the author was charged with violating the a ct on Public Meetings by holding a ‘public meeting’ without prior notification. The majority of the Committee found that a requirement to notify the police of an intended meeting in a public place six hours before its commencement might be compatible with the permitted limitations laid down in article 21 of the Covenant. in the circumstances of the specific case, however, it considered that the restriction was unreasonable, with none of those motives identified in article 21 applying.122

Date: 2015-02-28; view: 838

<== previous page	\|	next page ==>
Freedom of Assembly and Association	\|	Strike Action

doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.005 sec.)