CCPR/C/122/D/2212/2012 essential for any society. They constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society (para. 2). The Committee recalls that article 19 (3) of the Covenant allows certain restrictions only such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for the respect of the rights or reputations of others; and (b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. Any restriction on the exercise of such freedoms must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality. Restrictions must be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related to the specific need on which they are predicated.30 The Committee also recalls that it is for the State party to demonstrate that the restrictions on the author’s rights under article 19 of the Covenant were necessary and proportionate. 31 In the present case, the Committee observes, however, that neither the State party nor the courts have provided any explanation as to how the restrictions imposed on the author in the exercise of his right to freedom of expression were justified pursuant to the conditions of necessity and proportionality set out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant. 6.12 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, by sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment under article 293, part 1, of the Criminal Code for having organized an unauthorized but peaceful public gathering, the State party disproportionately interfered in the exercise of his right of peaceful assembly under article 21 of the Covenant. Such interference is not provided for by law, since the provisions of article 293 of the Criminal Code are too vague and broad to be able to foresee the legal consequences of one’s actions and there is no definition of what constitutes “mass disorder” in domestic law. Thus, the Committee recalls that the right of peaceful assembly, as guaranteed under article 21 of the Covenant, is a fundamental human right that is indispensable in a democratic society. That right entails the possibility of organizing and participating in a peaceful assembly, including a spontaneous one, at a public location. In the absence of any relevant information from the State party, the Committee concludes that, in the present case, the State party has violated the author’s rights under article 21 of the Covenant. 7. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of articles 7, 9 (1) and (3), 14 (1), (2) and (3) (b), (e) and (g), 17, 19 (2) and 21 of the Covenant. 8. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated with an effective remedy in the form of full reparation. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to provide Andrei Sannikov with adequate compensation, expunge his conviction from his criminal record and carry out a prompt, impartial, effective and thorough investigation into the allegations of torture and ill-treatment and initiate criminal proceedings against those responsible. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 9. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party. 30 31 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, para. 22. See, for example, Pivonos v. Belarus (CCPR/C/106/D/1830/2008), para. 9.3; and Olechkevitch v. Belarus (CCPR/C/107/D/1785/2008), para. 8.5; and Androsenko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/116/D/2092/2011), para. 7.3. 13