holds that the interference by the Respondent was not in accordance with the law 83.Additionally, the facts before the Court do not indicate that interference and lock-in was provoked by the Current Applicants neither was there evidence that the gathering was violent or disruptive or had the potential to be as the Applicants alleged they only gathered to plan the protest. This fact not being controverted is admitted by the Court. 84. Even where the State is justified in restricting an assembly, it is still obliged to ensure proportionality in the measures taken. As observed by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 27 “restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their protective function; they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected…” 85.The action of the Respondent in locking the Applicants in the premises of the Museum for hours where no violence was established is clearly overboard. The Court is of the opinion that there are other humane options available to the Respondent to disperse the Applicants without the prolonged detention. The Respondent having failed to defend this action nor avail the Court of any justification thereof, the Court finds that the restrictive measure applied by the Respondent was out of proportion and such action further violates the Applicants’ rights to peaceful assembly. 86.The Court therefore holds that the Respondent by disrupting the gathering of the Current Applicants and locking them in for hours without justification 27