34 In Austin & Others v The United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held by majority that the kettling of a group of people for approximately seven hours did not constitute deprivation of liberty, upholding the national court’s opinion that the authorities had no alternative if they were to avert a real risk of serious injury or damage and that containment was “the least intrusive and most effective means”.46 However, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association pointed out that the judgment “by no means constitute a blanket endorsement of kettling”,47 and that the Court stressed that “measures of crowd control should not be used by the national authorities directly or indirectly to stifle or discourage protest.” According to the UNODC/OHCHR Resource Book on the Use of Force and Firearms in Law Enforcement, “[c]ontainment is a problematic tactic from a human rights perspective, especially when used for long periods of time, preventing those contained from access to water or sanitary facilities and may amount to deprivation of liberty or, under certain circumstances, inhuman or degrading treatment.”48 Based on the ruling in the Austin & Others v The United Kingdom case, the ODIHR Human Rights Handbook on Policing Assemblies makes several recommendations that are particularly relevant for monitors of public gatherings: • P  rotocols should be put in place to allow those who were inadvertently caught up to exit to a safe place; • In particular, opportunities to exit should be available to vulnerable people, such as pregnant women, children, older people and those suffering from illness or injury; • The purpose of containment should always be to prevent violence continuing or escalating, and to enable the peaceful assembly to continue; • Containment should only be in place for the minimum amount of time necessary, and must be reviewed at regular intervals; and • Containment should only be employed when necessary to prevent serious damage or injury, and when no alternative police tactics that would be less restrictive of the rights to liberty and the freedom of movement can be employed.49 46 47 48 49 European Court of Human Rights, Austin & Others v The United Kingdom, judgment of 15 March 2012, para. 66. UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, “Mission to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, op. cit., note 43, para. 37. See: UNODC & UN OHCHR, Resource Book on the Use of Force and Firearms in Law Enforcement, op. cit., note 24, p. 120. ODIHR, Human Rights Handbook on Policing Assemblies, op. cit., note 2, pp. 102-103.