110. They further assert that the Senegalese Supreme Court, through numerous rulings, adjudged that the sole security justification adduced by the Respondent is insufficient to justify the orders prohibiting public events in the area determined by the Ministerial Order. They cite the judgment of 9 June 2016, which held that the Prefect is "obliged to specify the alleged risk as well as the absence of alternative measures to the ban, that the “only reference to disturbance of public order being imprecise and inadequate" (Exhibit 5). Consequently the Administrative Chamber of the Court considered that the prefectural order violates Article 10 of the Senegalese Constitution and in particular the freedom to express oneself in a peaceful march. 111. It is the further contention of the Applicants that in addition to the lack of justification for the prohibition, many demonstrations of a political nature have taken place in peace, without any incident. Some of which are the demonstration of 30 August 2012 in front of the Embassy of the Gambia following the execution of a condemned Senegalese to death in the country, and the 2002 demonstration in front of the Embassy of Nigeria against the sentences to stoning of women in the country. 112. The Applicants assert that a real risk must exist to justify such a ban but and as past peaceful protests have proven, such a risk does not exist. That moreover, less stringent measures could have been put in place by virtue of the principle of proportionality. 35