CCPR/C/114/D/1902/2009 essential for any society and constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society. 7.5 The Committee also notes that the right of peaceful assembly, guaranteed under article 21 of the Covenant, is a fundamental human right, being essential for public expression of one’s views and opinions and it is indispensable in a democratic society. This right includes the right to organize and participate in a peaceful assembly with the intention of supporting or expressing disapproval of a particular cause. 7.6 The Committee notes the author’s claims that he was apprehended and detained for participating in a meeting organized by a political party and charged with committing an administrative offence. It further notes the author’s argument that he was charged with an administrative offence for participating in a meeting organized by an opposition party, punished for expressing political views considered problematic by the authorities and forced to renounce his civil position, views and expressions. The issue before the Committee is to decide whether by preventing the author from participating in a meeting under the auspices of a political party, detaining him, charging him with an administrative offence and subsequently sentencing him to a fine the State party has unjustifiably restricted his rights as guaranteed by articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant. 7.7 The Committee recalls that article 19 (3) of the Covenant allows certain restrictions, but only as provided by law and necessary: (a) for respect of the rights or reputation of others; or (b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. The Committee observes that any restrictions on the exercise of the rights under article 19 (2) must conform to the strict test of necessity and proportionality and must be directly related to the specific need on which they are predicated. 7.8 The Committee further notes that no restrictions may be placed on the right of peaceful assembly that is guaranteed under article 21 other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. When a State party imposes restrictions with the aim of reconciling an individual’s right to assembly and the aforementioned interests of general concern, it should be guided by the objective of facilitating the right, rather than seeking unnecessary or disproportionate limitations to it. The State party is thus under the obligation to justify the limitation of the right protected by article 21 of the Covenant.8 7.9 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author was apprehended because he was participating in an unauthorized gathering, in violation of the Code regarding administrative offences, and that the actions by the police officers to put an end to the unauthorized event were justified since the organizers had not obtained authorization beforehand. However, the Committee also notes that the State party failed to demonstrate that apprehending and fining the author, even if based on law, were necessary for one of the legitimate purposes of article 19 (3) of the Covenant. The State party further failed to justify why an authorization was needed to hold a meeting in a private space rented by the political party. In that connection, the Committee recalls that it is up to the State party to demonstrate that the restrictions imposed were necessary in the case in question. 7.10 In the circumstances described above and in the absence of any other pertinent information from the State party to justify the restriction for purposes of article 19 (3) of the Covenant, the Committee concludes that the author’s rights under article 19 (2) of the 8 See, for example, communication No. 1948/2010, Turchenyak et al. v. Belarus, Views adopted on 24 July 2013, para. 7.4. 7