should not only be promoted with respect to the use of force to disperse an assembly. 213. Furthermore, in the case of Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey, the European Court held that the right to freedom of association and assembly, most especially by political parties, is vital in ensuring pluralism and the proper functioning of democracy.”71 The European Court precisely pronounced that: “Freedom of association is not absolute, however, and it must be accepted that where an association, through its activities or the intentions it has expressly or implicitly declared in its program, jeopardizes the State’s institutions or the rights and freedoms of others.”72 214. The Commission acknowledges the role of the Respondent State in ensuring that the freedom of assembly is enjoyed strictly within the confines of the law, most significantly, those enacted in the interest of national security, safety, health, ethics, and rights and freedoms of others. This, therefore, puts the Respondent State in a critical position where it may sometimes be forced by prevailing circumstances to interfere with the enjoyment of this right. But where there is any such interference, the interference must be justified. 215. In the above-referenced case of Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey, it was held that where there is interference to the exercise of a right, “Such an interference will constitute a breach of Article 11 unless it was “prescribed by law,” pursued one or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2 and was “necessary in a democratic society” for the achievement of those aims.” 216. In the same light, the Commission notes that there must exist a balance between the Respondent State’s obligation to ensure that the right to freedom of assembly is exercised within the confines of the law on the one hand and the right to enjoy the freedom of assembly on the other. The balance rests on the proportionality of the actions of the Respondent State. Where laws are violated when exercising their right to freedom of assembly, the Respondent State’s action must be proportional to the violation. Where the Respondent State’s action is to disperse the Application No. 23885/94, Case of Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey (1999), The European Court of Human Rights, Para 37 (2). 72 Application no. 23885/94, Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey (1999), European Court of Human Rights, Para. 94. 71 ~ 42 ~ African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region, The Gambia, Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.int/