Parliament amended the protest law it passed last year, approving changes proposed by MP Irene Charalambides in cooperation with the Justice Ministry following criticism from the OSCE.
The changes were approved with opposition from AKEL, which had initially proposed full repeal of the protest law and later tabled amendments that were rejected by the majority of MPs.
According to the explanatory report, the aim was to amend the Public Gatherings and Parades Law to comply with requirements set out in a recent OSCE legal opinion. The new regulations aim to clarify vague concepts in the legislation and add necessary safeguards to effectively protect the right of peaceful assembly.
Under the new regulations, no permit is required to organise a protest and the organiser will face no penalties or liability. Specifically, where an organiser has been appointed, they bear no responsibility for the actions or omissions of protest participants.
Under the changes, isolated acts of violence by a group can be dealt with by removing troublemakers, whereas previously the chief of police had the right to disperse the gathering.
Anyone can protest wearing a face covering, but if they carry a knife, club or other offensive weapon, police have the right to ask them to remove the covering to verify their identity.
Dispersing a gathering or parade is a last resort under the new regulations. Proportionate force is provided for to disperse a parade or gathering. Police are also required to maintain a register of parades.
The organiser may send a letter to police or the local authority seven days in advance to inform them of the time, place and purpose. An addition allows the organiser to inform the chief of police of the possible use of vehicles, placards, equipment or other objects, where applicable.
Spontaneous gatherings are permitted and do not require an organiser to be appointed.
Finally, protests are prohibited inside public buildings but not outside them.
In her speech to parliament, Charalambides said: “When the law was passed last year there were strong reactions because it violated human rights. Our concerns were confirmed by the legal opinion issued by OSCE experts. Freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are fundamental rights. States have an obligation not only to respect but to protect and facilitate the exercise of these rights. And according to the OSCE, the law does not protect them.”
AKEL’s George Koukoumas said: “The legislation parliament passed last July is undemocratic. We have a proposal from Mrs Charalambides which improves the legislation but does not address critical points that keep the core of the legislation undemocratic.”
He raised four specific concerns: the reference to spontaneous gatherings, the term “public morals” allowing restrictions, the expanded definition of organiser, and the ability to impose restrictions on protests.
DIPA’s Alekos Tryfonides said: “The OSCE identified specific points that can be improved. We support the amending law because we seek Cyprus’s full harmonisation with international standards on human rights. We are not afraid to revise our position when the public good and the rule of law require it.”
Alexandra Attalidou said: “The provisions were vague and general. Today we have before us a proposal that incorporates the recommendations made by the OSCE itself and confirms that our concerns were justified.”
DIKO’s Panikos Leonidou said they would vote for the proposal following OSCE observations on three to five issues which they accepted and included in the proposal. They would vote against AKEL amendments except one.
AKEL’s Aristos Damianou said he expected a basic “mea culpa” from MPs who voted for the law last July. “If you had listened to our warnings then, we would not be here today,” he said.
ELAM’s Sotiris Ioannou noted there had been eight protests for Gaza, one bicommunal LGBTQI protest and one for Cyprus since the law passed, with no problems at any of them.
DISY’s Nikos Tornaritis, chair of the Legal Committee, said they would not vote for any AKEL amendments because they essentially abolish the legislation. “We respect institutions, court decisions and you will never see us either against institutions or against the courts,” he added.
AKEL amendments were rejected by the majority. The bill was passed into law with 29 votes in favour and 13 abstentions from AKEL MPs.
Read more: