326_16 interference 16. The applicant’s criminal conviction for having organised and participated in an unlawful demonstration amounted to an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of assembly, even though the pronouncement of the judgment was suspended (see, mutatis mutandis, in terms of interference with the right to freedom of assembly, Gün and Others v. Turkey, no. 8029/07, § 54, 18 June 2013, and Kemal Çetin v. Turkey, no. 3704/13, § 39, 26 May 2020; see also, concerning the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment, Ergündoğan, cited above, § 26, and Vedat Şorli v. Turkey, no. 42048/19, § 41, 19 October 2021). That interference was prescribed by section 28(1) of Law no. 2911 and pursued at least one of the legitimate aims set out in Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, namely the prevention of disorder.