Blanket bans may interfere significantly with the ability to hold assemblies within sight and sound of the intended audience. Restrictions may be permitted in the context of combating terrorism and violent extremism. However, domestic legislation designed to counter terrorism and violent extremism must not impose any limitations on fundamental rights and freedom, including the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, that is not strictly necessary for the protection of national security and rights and protection of others. III. Burden of proof for restrictions 1. Mere suspicions, fears, or presumptions are not sufficient to warrant the imposition of prior restrictions on assemblies. The mere probability of tension and heated arguments between opposing groups during a demonstration is not enough to justify the prohibition of an assembly. 2. The burden of proving the violent intentions of the protesters lies with the authorities. 3. The reasons for restrictions must be communicated to the organizers of assemblies in writing as early as possible. It must be communicated well in advance to allow the organisers to challenge the restrictions in a court of law prior to the event. IV. Grounds for restricting the right of assembly The Constitution lists several legitimate purposes for which restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly can be justified; 1. National security: It may serve as a ground for restriction only to protect the country’s existence or territorial integrity against the use of threat or force from an external or internal source. There may, however, be no restriction on political speeches or expressions of public interest. Where the views expressed do not comprise incitement to violence or, justify the commission of terrorist offenses, the State must not restrict the right of the general public to be informed of such views, even on the basis of Article 15(7), for purposes of the protection of territorial integrity, national security, and the 12