The procession, which commenced in Dehiwala, had caused a 3km long traffic congestion. It was further stated that no police officers were aware that the procession was to be held, and in compliance with the provisions in the Ordinance, the police force was duty-bound to prevent this procession. If the police failed to prevent such an act it would amount to a breach of Section 55 of the Police Ordinance. He further stated the dispersal of the unlawful assembly was conducted by the use of force as reasonably necessary, provided for by Sections 95 (1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 95(1) of Chapter 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states, any Magistrate or police officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police may command any unlawful assembly. According to Section 95(2), if upon being so commanded any such assembly does not disperse, the Magistrate or the police officer may proceed to disperse such assembly by the use of such force as is reasonably necessary to disperse the assembly. While directing the attention of HRC towards Section 138 of the Penal Code, which states an assembly of five or more persons is designated an " unlawful assembly" if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is to commit any mischief or criminal trespass or other offence; he stated that since the students had obstructed public roads between Ward Place and the University Grants Commission; this was an unlawful obstruction. He further stated that there was also a violation under Section 80 of the Police Ordinance - using any sound amplifying instruments without a relevant permit from the authorized officers would amount to an offence. Accordingly, under Section 138, they have conducted an unlawful assembly by unlawfully obstructing public roads. In support of his statement, he also quoted the Supreme Court judgment in Bernard Soysa & Others vs. Attorney General, which declares that assemblies cannot be grouped in public places irrespective of their peaceful nature. And also, peaceful assemblies are subject to the limitations as specified under the derogations enshrined in the Constitution. He also reported that the University Grants Commission, the Higher Education Ministry and the National Hospital were located in the area the students had assembled. If the police had not dispersed this gathering, it would have been a cause of great concern to the public, as about 100 ambulances move in the area daily and such obstructions can severely affect their mobility. There is also an offence under the National Thoroughfares Act. The Lipton Circle is a main zone in the city center of Colombo, an obstruction of which - at that particular time - would cause a huge inconvenience to the public; an obstruction by 1200 students can cause an inconvenience to millions of people. They asserted that protecting the rights of one group should not lead to a violation of the rights of others. This has been outlined in Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The police had acted according to the applicable provisions and controlled the protest under applicable rules of the Criminal Procedure Code. They claimed before the Commission, that they needed to make use of reasonable force. As mentioned in Wijesiriwardana v Kumara, use of minimal force is no longer applicable; the standard is use of reasonable force. 86