A YEAR AFTER: MAIN VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CRIMEA PART 4 Previously the authorities approved only four locations for peaceful meetings in Simferopol. However, this meeting was held in a place that is not included in the number of pre-approved locations. This again conR rms the creation of formal obstacles for certain groups in the ex- ercise of freedom of peaceful assembly and selective application of established regulations. On the other hand, the restriction of the freedom of assembly in Crimea is related not only to the civic activity of the pro-Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar activists, but also extends to other eT orts of the local population, including the pro-Russian, to draw attention to social issues with the help of mass events. On August 25, 2014, the Sevastopol police o7 cer forbade the public organization Defense of Sevastopol to hold an anti-corruption rally at the Nakhimov Square. The o7 cer said that the rally would be considered unlawful for interfering with the auto show. In September, the Simferopol authorities refused the Russian community ‘Sobol’ to hold the rallies at Lenin Square to protest against the seizure of property of the Krymavtotrans enterprise. On March 7, 2015, the police and people with badges ‘Russian Cossack Troops’ forced to change the venue of the rally of the public organization Defense of Sev- astopol, which demanded the resignation of the city governor Sergey Menyailo. It was planned to hold the event at the Nakhimov Square, but the participants, under pressure from the security forces, had to hold a rally at the monument to the Empress Catherine. Unfortunately, the practices in the R eld of freedom of peaceful assembly in Crimea are moving towards ever greater restrictions, including express prohibition, per- secution of the organizers and participants of peaceful assembly, the use of warn- ings to restrict the meetings, involvement of paramilitary groups etc. Express prohibition Back on May 16, 2014, the self-proclaimed Head of Crimea Sergey Aksyonov issued a Decree that prohibited holding of peaceful assemblies on the territory of Crimea until June 6. Mr. Aksenov’s justiR cation for such a broad prohibition of assembly was “to eliminate possible provocations from extremists, which are able to enter the territory of the Republic of Crimea, in order to avoid the disruption of the holiday season in the Republic of Crimea”. The local authorities, however, did not provide conR rmations of such threats. 111