C) Roles and Responsibilities of the National Assembly to Protect the Fundamental Rights Article 21 of the UN Covenant on Civil Rights stipulates that “the right to peaceful assembly is recognized” and states that no restrictions, other than those necessary in a democratic society, should be excessive. According to General Comment No. 37 (2020) of the UN Human Rights Committee, restrictions on assemblies must meet the principle of necessity and proportionality beyond simply reasonable or expedient, and priority should be given to the least intrusive measures. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association pointed out in his report on the visit to Korea (2016) that the unconditional restrictions on the location of peaceful assemblies, such as Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, are essentially disproportionate restrictions.172) The Constitutional Court has ruled that since the location is important for the purpose and effect of the assembly, it is prohibited to separate the location from the subject of the protest, unless to protect other legal interests.173) Moreover, the purpose of prohibiting the assembly under Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act is seen as to protect the performance of the constitutional functions of the relevant institution.174) There was a constant disagreement as to whether prohibition of assemblies and demonstrations within 100m of the capitol, courthouses, the Constitutional Court, diplomatic institutions, and the official residences of high officials, which are designated as no assembly zone under the current Assembly and Demonstration Act, is compatible with the constitutional function of those institutions, and therefore, it is an issue worth thinking about in order to protect the fundamental rights of the people. In the cases of the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom, assemblies and demonstrations are often allowed within areas, such as the capitol, under certain conditions and methods.175) 172) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association on his mission to the Republic of Korea, 2016 (A/HRC/32/36/Add,2). 173) Constitutional Court, Decided on Oct. 30, 2003, 2000HunBa67 En Banc Decision. 174) However, while recognizing the constitutional specificity of the President, the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court and the need to be protected from physical pressure or harm, the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that a legal provision compatible with the freedom of assembly and demonstration is necessary. 175) National Assembly Legislative Research Office, Issues and Arguments, Significance and Tasks on the Constitutional Court’s Decision on Prohibiting Assemblies Near the Capitol, Jun. 19, 2018. 66