A/HRC/30/29 a court decision, non-commercial organizations as “foreign agents” (ibid.). In its response dated 25 August 2014, the Government explained the procedures followed in the case of the Memorial and indicated that such registration should not be considered as interference of any kind in the rights to freely express opinions or form associations but that it aims at ensuring transparency and openness in their activities (ibid.). The Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, in his report of 10 June 2015, expressed his continued grave concern in relation to the Law and the targeting of human rights organizations that engage with the United Nations human rights mechanisms (A/HRC/29/25/Add.3, para. 436). 4. Sri Lanka 4. In my previous report reference was made to Visuvalingam Kirupaharan, General Secretary of the Tamil Centre for Human Rights, in relation to his participation in the twenty-fifth session of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/27/38, para. 34). The Government, on 24 July 2014, sought clarifications from mandate holders who had brought the allegations of acts of intimidation against Mr. Kirupaharan to its attention, indicating that there was no connection between the alleged sequence of events and the authorities (A/HRC/27/72, case LKA 5/2014). Mandate holders in response transmitted clarifications and their observations on the case to the Government referring to the fact that “States are the primary duty bearers in protecting, defending and promoting human rights, and as such, should address violations of human rights committed by both State and non-State actors” (A/HRC/28/85, case LKA 12/2014). At the time of finalization of the present report, no response had been received from the Government. 5. My previous report also discussed the case of 24 Sri Lankan civil society organizations that had reportedly been accused by the State -controlled Sri Lanka Rupavahini (TV) Corporation, in its English news bulletin, of having issued a joint civil society memorandum to the HRC (A/HRC/27/38, para. 33). On 24 September 2014, the Government of Sri Lanka, in response to the joint communication transmitted by mandate holders, stated that the Sri Lanka Rupavahihi Corporation was exercising its freedom of speech and expression within the set legal framework in Sri Lanka, however “unpalatable the contents of the newscast would have been to the said human rights defenders”. If the human rights defenders felt wronged by such newscast they could invoke a civil action for damages under the laws of Sri Lanka for defamation (A/HRC/28/85, case LKA 4/2014). 5. United Arab Emirates 6. The case of Osama al-Najjar, who had reportedly become the subject of reprisals after meeting with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers during her visit to the United Arab Emirates in February 2014, was included in my previous report (A/HRC/27/38, para. 37-38). The Special Rapporteur, in her oral statements to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly in 2014, called on the authorities to take immediate measures to release Mr. Al -Najjar and open an independent investigation into the circumstances of his arrest and the serious allegations of torture. On 2 April 2015, mandate holders raised further allegations concerning Mr. Al-Najjar with the Government (A/HRC/30/27, case ARE 2/2015). On 25 November 2014, after a trial that reportedly lacked respect for the most basic due process and fair trial guarantees, Mr. Al-Najjar was sentenced to three years in prison and fined 500,000 Emirati Dirhams (about 136,000 USD) on charges of, inter alia, contacting foreign organizations and presenting inaccurate information (ibid.). The Government, in its response of 30 April 2015, listed procedural guarantees that had been in place in the case of Mr. Al-Najjar (ibid.). In his report of 4 March 2015, the Special Rapporteur on the situation on human rights defenders recalled that the 20/21 GE.15-13885