organize a public assembly on a road, they must obtain authorization from the responsible authority. In the process of issuing the authorization, the responsible authority needs to establish whether the organizer provided adequate measures to ensure order; safety of the participants, other people, and the public in general; and traffic safety.131 ODIHR’ s Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly go into greater detail on this issue, describing practices aimed at ensuring that organizers and authorities work together to ensure that freedom of peaceful assembly is respected and protected.132 Providing adequate protection Because of the nature of their message, defenders often have to deal with counterprotesters during assemblies that they have organized. Some of these can be extremely violent, thus hindering their freedom to assemble peacefully. As ODIHR’ s Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly point out, under OSCE commitments and international human rights law, the state “ has a positive duty to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to take place without participants fearing physical violence” .133 The Guidelines also note that police protection should be provided and that such protection should be free of charge.134 In their responses to the questionnaire, several OSCE participating States said that police protection is provided at assemblies and rallies.135 The government of the Russian Federation indicated that such protection is provided by public authorities free of charge.136 Individuals who disrupt assemblies may be punished. In Serbia, for example, there is a provision in the Criminal Code that states that whoever uses force, threat, deception, or other means to prevent or hinder a public rally held in accordance with the law, and unless there is no indication of any other more serious offence, shall be fined or sentenced to up to one year in prison.137 Sweden: Example of Providing Adequate Protection138 The Göteborg Committee139 submitted its report to the justice minister in January 2002. The committee’ s report, including its criticism of the police methods used against large gatherings of people, led to the development of special police tactics that focus on dialogue rather than the use of batons and riot shields. These tactics comprise several individual components, of which the training of personnel is the most important. Training covers topics such as mental preparation, communication, law, spotting danger, and preventing injuries – without the use of shields and batons. Ethics pervade the entire training process. 131 Slovenia’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 1 July 2008. Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, ODIHR, op. cit., note 5. 133 Ibid., para. 115, p. 56. 134 Ibid., in particular paras. 26-29, pp. 29-30. 135 The Holy See’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 30 May 2008; Poland’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 2 June 2008; Germany’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 30 May 2008, information provided by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2 June 2008.. 136 Russia’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 9 July 2008. 137 Serbia’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 17 June 2008. 138 Sweden’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 9 June 2008. 139 This is an official committee that was established to look into the actions taken by the police during the 2001 EU summit in Göteborg. 132 31