54 SUHAKAM Report of Public Inquiry into the Incidents During and After the Public Assembly of 28 April 2012 These barricades were erected apparently to prevent the participants from entering and occupying Dataran Merdeka. 5.10 While the Panel makes no finding as to the legality or otherwise of the installation of the barricades, whether pursuant to the Court Order or section 26 of the Police Act, it does question, however, whether it was necessary to erect barricades that comprised three layers, namely, dannert wires, also known as concertina razor barbed wires, water-filled barriers and steel barriers. Although the police claimed that dannert wires were not harmful to the public, the Panel questions the use and suitability of such wires especially on an occasion and at places where large crowds were expected to congregate. The Panel views with serious concern the admission of the police that if not handled properly or according to procedure, such wires could cause minor injuries (see Chapter 4, paragraph 4.12). In a situation where large crowds are expected to gather and emotions could run high, which could lead to untoward incidents, having barbed wires in the area could pose not just minor injuries but some serious dangers to the people gathered there. To expect laypersons to know how handle such wires properly or according to procedure and especially in such situations is surely not reasonable, more so, when the police asserted that such wires could only be removed by experts (see Chapter 4, paragraph 4.12). The Panel wonders whether PDRM was putting the protection of Dataran Merdeka over and above the safety of the people who were gathered in and around that area that day in exercise of their fundamental right of expression and freedom to assemble peaceably. Before 3.00 pm 5.11 All the police personnel who were on duty on the day of the assembly were given a series of briefings prior to 28 April 2012. According to testimonies provided by the police personnel, all personnel and their troops were required to handle the assembly and participants using what was termed as the 3R 1C 1E approach (Restrain, Restrain, Restrain; Caution and Enforce). 5.12 The Panel finds that the number of participants was larger than the number of police on duty. According to Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan (W48), there were approximately 250,000 participants at the assembly; whereas according to Dato’ Mohmad bin Salleh (W49), the CPO, there were only 25,000-30,000 participants. Meanwhile, the PDRM submitted before the Panel that there were 3,000 police officers on duty that day. While the Panel makes no finding as to the actual number of participants, it is safe to conclude, based on the estimated figures given by the witnesses, that on the day of the assembly, the participants outnumbered the number of police personnel on duty.