Coercive acts Risk assessment by the police The Federal Ministry of the Interior explained that the police had assessed all of the demonstrations about which the NPM was not informed as peaceful. These assessments had been correct according to an ex-officio analysis because these demonstrations had taken place without incident. The NPM only shared this assessment conditionally, as these were politically controversial demonstrations on sensitive issues. In view of the heated discussions in Austria surrounding the coronavirus measures and due to the violent riots in the USA during the “Black lives matter” demonstrations, notification would have been sensible. It all also transpired over the year that not all demonstrations against the coronavirus measures were without incident. Peaceful and semi-peaceful demonstrations not notifiable After extensive discussion, however, the NPM refrained from wanting to be informed about all demonstrations – regardless of the risk classification by the police – because then thousands more events would be reported. The commission would then have to examine this mass of reports and decide whether observation would appear to be sensible and required. This additional effort would not be manageable for the commissions for capacity reasons. In the event of a non-reported demonstration where the commissions for example can assume from the reports in the media that it was challenging for the police, they can however view the police risk analysis and examine why the police had classified this demonstration as peaceful or semi-peaceful. 2.8.4 Entering railway tracks As explained in the NPM Report 2019 (p. 186), an employee of Austrian Federal Railways refused members of the commission entry to the railway tracks while observing the monitoring of a goods train by the police force. In its statement of opinion, the Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology referred to the statutory rules that prohibit members of the commissions from entering the railway tracks. Individual exception regulations could only be issued for the individual members of the commission on a case-by-case basis. With this solution, however, the NPM would not have been able to fulfil its constitutional mandate. Furthermore, the organisational effort required would have been greater. For this reason, the NPM requested the Human Rights Advisory Council for an assessment. Advice of the Human Rights Adivisory Council 167 The Human Rights Advisory Council argued in its statement of opinion that the Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology could either make use of its power to issue statutory instruments in accordance with Section 47 (2) of the Railway Act (Eisenbahngesetz) in favour of the commission members or explicitly mention