101. Reference of threat to national security simplicita is not a magic wand to deflect an allegation of the violation of a human rights violation without specifying the issue of national security being protected or sought to be protected. 102. Additionally, the Court notes the duration of the ban which came into operation on 20 July 2011 and remains active up to 14 September 2020 when this Application was filed. The apt question to ask is whether the alleged threat to national security still exists in reality even as of the time this Application was filed. The Respondent ought to provide convincing reason(s) for the continued operation of the ban which has assumed an indefinite character. 103. The Court notes that even when interference in a guaranteed human right is lawful, it is not expected to serve as a perpetual obstruction or denial of the enjoyment of the right. The Court is of the considered opinion that the prolonged and indefinite restriction imposed by the operation of the ban is unreasonable and unjustified. Indeed States must not only safeguard the right to assemble peacefully but also refrain from applying unreasonable indirect restrictions upon the right. DJAVIT AN V. TURKEY (APPLICATION NO. 20652/92) JUDGMENT OF 20 FEBRUARY 2003. 104. The purpose of any interference by Government is to facilitate and not to prevent or restrict the right, as steps taken relative to the rights to freedom of assembly shall have the primary purpose of enabling the exercise of the rights and not to restrict it. (PARAGRAPH 71 OF THE ACHPR GUIDELINES ON FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. 33