There are 1,800 police officers, divided among the three metropolitan counties, who have been specially trained in the new police tactics. These officers are part of a national reinforcement organization that can be deployed all over the country. The application of special police tactics is a good illustration of an ongoing organizational learning process within the Swedish police service, which integrates central democratic concepts into operational practices. All uniformed police officers go through a mandatory training course in everyday tactics to ensure that they will be able to carry out their duties with respect for the rule of law and in a safe manner for all concerned. The communicative component inherent in the everyday-tactics model is aimed at advancing the officers’ understanding of conflicts and how they unfold in order to reduce the level of violent exchanges and to defuse volatile situations. Allowing spontaneous assemblies Human rights work often requires direct responses to ongoing events, which may mean that it is not always possible to inform the authorities of planned assemblies in accordance with the relevant notification period prescribed in the law. For example, a defender may be arrested for his or her activities, and supporters may want to demonstrate at the prison and call for his or her release. In other cases, individuals may spontaneously gather without any form of organization. The authorities must be tolerant of such peaceful assemblies, and must not disrupt them.140 A number of participating States informed ODIHR that they recognize the right to hold spontaneous assemblies, and allow them to proceed as long as they remain peaceful.141 In Germany, for example, the duty to register outdoor assemblies, as stipulated in the law on assemblies, is interpreted as not being applicable to spontaneous assemblies.142 The government of Slovenia noted that the police still protects spontaneous assemblies, defined in Slovenian law as “ unorganized assemblies” .143 140 Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, ODIHR, op. cit., note 5, paras. 134, 137-140, pp. 6163. Also see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 74552/01, 5 December 2006, paras. 41-42: “ where demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence, it is important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance” . This was reiterated by the Court in Bukta and Others v. Hungary, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 25691/04, 17 July 2007, para. 36: “ In the Court' s view, in special circumstances when an immediate response, in the form of a demonstration, to a political event might be justified, a decision to disband the ensuing, peaceful assembly solely because of the absence of the requisite prior notice, without any illegal conduct by the participants, amounts to a disproportionate restriction on freedom of peaceful assembly.” 141 Germany’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 30 May 2008; Finland’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 1 June 2008; information also provided by Croatia’ s ombudsman, 19 May 2008. 142 Germany’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 30 May 2008. 143 Slovenia’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 1 July 2008. 32