16 KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 48. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant’s rights had been lawful, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been proportionate to that aim. The domestic legal provisions governing the notification and conduct of public events struck a fair balance between the interests of the organisers of and participants in such events on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of all others – in particular, by providing for adequate measures to prevent and punish infringements of public order and public safety. 49. The Government further submitted that the Public Events Act set out a list of locations where the holding of public events was prohibited (for a summary of the domestic law provisions, see Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 223). That prohibition was justified by the special legal regime pertaining to those locations and the need to ensure their security. In particular, referring to a decision of 29 May 2007 by the Constitutional Court (for a summary of the domestic law provisions, see Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 253), the Government argued that the aim of the prohibition on holding public events in the vicinity of court buildings was to protect the independence of the judiciary and to prevent pressure being put on judges. The restriction was therefore justified, and did not breach citizens’ constitutional rights. The perimeter of the zone in the vicinity of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic had been determined by Syktyvkar town administration’s decree no. 9/3483 of 4 September 2013 (see paragraph 35 above); the location chosen by the applicant had been within that perimeter. The domestic authorities had therefore proposed that he change the location of his event to one of the specially designated locations for holding public events. The applicant had not discharged the burden of proof to show that those locations had been unsuitable for his purposes: they had been within the town of Syktyvkar, open to the public and large enough to accommodate high numbers of participants. The Government pointed out that public events had been regularly held at the specially designated locations in Syktyvkar. They produced copies of ninety-one notifications of public events lodged by the followers of the Vedic culture, as well as a dozen notifications lodged by other associations, to be held in the specially designated locations. The applicant had himself held a public event there in July 2016 after the town administration had proposed one of the specially designated locations for a meeting planned by him. 2. The Court’s assessment 50. It has not been disputed between the parties that the proposal to change the location of the applicant’s public event amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of peaceful assembly (see Lashmankin and Others, cited above, §§ 404-09). It remains to be ascertained whether the interference was “prescribed by law”, pursued one or more legitimate