 • Human Rights Defenders in the OSCE Region 2. Denial of permission to assemble. Defenders are often denied permission to assemble. Such denials are sometimes justified by claiming that another unrelated festival or assembly is taking place at the same time.89 In one case, an NGO was denied permission to hold an assembly because it refused to omit an LGBT group from the list of participants.90 The same LGBT organization was denied permission to stage an equality march, on the grounds that it would “propagandize for homosexuality and threaten public order and Christian values”.91 Similar demonstrations were banned for the risk they supposedly posed of creating public disorder.92 3. Lack of sufficient police protection for demonstrators. The views of many human rights defenders are controversial in nature. Counter-protests are often organized that may be violent in nature. Though it is the duty of the state to protect demonstrators from such violence, police protection is often lacking. For example, a gay-pride parade was attacked, leaving 10 demonstrators injured and one also needing hospitalization.93 Similar attacks occurred elsewhere.94 In other cases, police intervention was reportedly slow in coming.95 4. Dispersal despite official permission. In some cases, human rights defenders’ gatherings were also dispersed despite having received official permission. In one instance, an NGO that had initially been refused permission to 89 See, for example, the case of the Ponomarev picket (Russian Federation), FIDH/OMCT, op. cit., note 19, pp. 527-528. 90 Case of Information Centre Gender Doc-M (Moldova), FIDH/OMCT, op. cit., note 19, p. 485. 91 Case of Information Centre Gender Doc-M (Moldova), HRW, “Moldova: Reverse Ban on Gay Rights Demonstration, Respect Domestic and European Law”, press release, 8 May 2007; UN SRSG, op. cit., note 15, para. 454. 92 Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Memorandum to the Latvian Government, Strasbourg, 16 May 2007, CommDH(2007)9, available at <https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=113427 9&Site=CommDH&BackColorInternet=FEC65B&BackColorIntranet=FEC65B&BackColorLogged=F FC679>. 93 Case of the Tallinn Gay Pride March (Estonia), AI, “Amnesty International Report 2007. The state of world’s human rights”, p. 114. 94 Case of the Krakow March for Tolerance (Poland), UN SRSG, op. cit., note 15, para. 560; HRW, “Poland: Official Homophobia Threatens Basic Freedoms”, press release, 5 June 2006; FIDH/OMCT, op. cit., note 19, p. 485. 95 Riga Pride case (Latvia), CoE Commissioner for Human Rights, op. cit., note 92, para. 87; FIDH/ OMCT, op. cit., note 19, para. 402.