prevented from holding such events.235 Content-based restrictions imposed only because assemblies reflect certain views perceived as controversial in society or express disapproval of the authorities are incompatible with relevant international standards and principles.236 The same applies to limitations that are not formally based on the content of the assembly, but which are imposed because the organizers are perceived to be critical of the authorities or associated with issues that are controversial in society. In line with international human rights standards, restrictions on the content of any message expressed during an assembly should be subject to a high threshold and should only be imposed if there is an imminent threat of violence.237 166. Similarly, restrictions on the time, place and manner of a peaceful assembly should be applied only in full compliance with international standards and the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination. Participating States should put in place adequate mechanisms and procedures to ensure that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly can be enjoyed in practice, including by assessing and addressing security risks. Before taking a final decision on any legitimate restriction on an assembly, the authorities should inform the organizers and give them an opportunity to express their views in that regard. The authorities should also provide reasonable alternatives to ensure that a peaceful assembly is held within the “sight and sound” of the target audience.238 167. Such reasonable alternatives are reportedly not always offered in a number of par- ticipating States, where the authorities refer assemblies to remote locations that are difficult or impossible to reach by public transport and which prevent human rights defenders from voicing their concerns to the target audience. Reasons 235  See, for example, the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Alekseyev v. Russia (Applications nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, 21 October 2010) about the continued ban of LGBT Pride Marches in Moscow in 2006, 2007 and 2008. The authorities had enforced the ban by dispersing unauthorized events and found participants who had breached the ban guilty of administrative offences. The authorities claimed that the ban was necessary because of potential breaches of public order and violence against the participants and for the protection of morals. In its judgement the ECtHR reiterated that Article 11 of the ECHR protects demonstrations that may annoy or cause offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote (para. 73). Furthermore, it stated: “If every probability of tension and heated exchange between opposing groups during a demonstration were to warrant its prohibition, society would be faced with being deprived of the opportunity of hearing differing views on any question which offends the sensitivity of the majority opinion.” See also the judgement in the case of Bączkowski and Others v. Poland (Application no. 1543/06, 3 May 2007), in which the Court found the banning of an LGBT pride parade in Warsaw in 2005, violated the right to freedom of assembly as well as the right to a remedy and the prohibition against discrimination. 236  See, for example, the UN Human Rights Committee “Concluding Observations on Bosnia and Herzegovina”, UN Doc. CCPR/C/BIH/CO/2, 13 November 2012, para. 19. The Committee expressed concern at reports of restrictions of assemblies in Prijedor town in May 2012, where the Mayor prohibited commemorations for the 20th anniversary of mass atrocities in Omarska. The Committee also expressed concern at reports of public announcements that any failure to comply with the prohibition of the use of the term “genocide” when referring to the crimes committed in Omarska would be prosecuted. The Committee called on the state party to comply with the strict requirements of Covenant concerning freedom of assembly and expression, and to investigate the legality of the prohibitions to conduct commemorations in the town of Prijedor. 237  Ibid. para. 3.3. 238  A/HRC/23/39, para. 83(c). Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 81