the ECHR.289 The Court has also stressed that “inhabitants of a region in a country are entitled to form associations in order to promote the region’s special characteristics. The fact that an association asserts a minority consciousness cannot in itself justify an interference with its rights under Article 11 of the Convention”.290 Furthermore, the Court has held in its case law that the ability to establish a legal entity in order to act collectively in a field of mutual interest was one of the most important aspects of freedom of association. As such, it may amount to a violation of the right to freedom of association if registration as a legal entity is denied on the grounds that the statutes of an association does not conform with domestic laws, without giving the founders of the association an opportunity to change the statutes in order to bring them into line with domestic legal requirements before the final decision on the association’s registration is pronounced.291 202. Furthermore, laws and regulations that require an unreasonably high number of people for the formation of an NGO or that entail nationality-requirements concerning the founders, which may prevent persons belonging to minority groups 289  See the judgements in the cases of Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece, Application no. 35151/05, 11 October 2007, as well as Emin and Others v. Greece, Application no. 34144/05, and Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others v. Greece, Application no. 26698/05, both adopted on 27 March 2008. The cases related to the refusal of the registration, and in one case a court-ordered dissolution, of associations of the Muslim minority in the Greek region of Western Thrace on the grounds that the authorities considered the names of the organizations to mislead the public regarding the origin and objectives of the organizations – in terms of whether the associations represented a religious minority or an ethnic one – since by virtue of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, only a Muslim but not a Turkish minority in Western Thrace had been recognized. The Court held that the spreading of the idea that there was an ethnic minority could not be said to constitute a threat to democracy, especially considering that there was no information suggesting that the members of the associations advocated the use of violence or antidemocratic or anti-constitutional methods. The Court emphasized that freedom of association involved the right of everyone to express, in a lawful context, their beliefs about their ethnic identity; see Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others v. Greece, para. 56. 290  See Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, Applications nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, 2 October 2001, para. 89. See also Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, Application no. 26695/95, 10 July 1998, para. 44. In the case of Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, the Court considered, inter alia, whether the voicing of separatist ideas and statements at public meetings to commemorate historic events (the applicant association had previously been refused registration because it was considered anti-constitutional) would justify a refusal by the authorities to allow such events to be organized (for content-based and other restrictions on assemblies see also the section on Freedom of peaceful assembly above). The Court held in the case that “the fact that a group of persons calls for autonomy or even requests secession of part of the country’s territory – thus demanding fundamental constitutional and territorial changes – cannot automatically justify a prohibition of its assemblies. Demanding territorial changes in speeches and demonstrations does not automatically amount to a threat to the country’s territorial integrity and national security. […] In a democratic society based on the rule of law, political ideas which challenge the existing order and whose realisation is advocated by peaceful means must be afforded a proper opportunity of expression through the exercise of the right of assembly as well as by other lawful means” (para. 97). 291  See the judgement in the case of Özbek and Others v. Turkey, Application no. 35570/02, 6 October 2009. 94 Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders