suppressing the activities of critical defenders through deregistration.124 In some participating States, the reasons provided for refusing to register an NGO must include certain information, e.g., the written response from the responsible agency must refer to the corresponding legal regulations on which the refusal is based.125 Another technique to ensure clarity is to prescribe that the contents of the written response must include an introduction, ruling, explanation and right to appeal.126 This can clarify the situation defenders find themselves in, and make it more difficult for public authorities to base their decisions on spurious grounds or political considerations. Making it possible to appeal registration-related decisions in court If registration is refused or discontinued, there should be recourse to effective legal remedies in the form of access to administrative review bodies and ultimately an independent court to test the compatibility of this decision with the law.127 An independent judiciary can be a shield for human rights defenders against politically motivated or arbitrary decision-making by public authorities. In their responses to the questionnaire, OSCE participating States generally indicated that registration-related decisions could be appealed to a court. For example, in Portugal, “ all decisions by Portuguese Public Entities which refuse requests presented by private persons … may be appealed in Court” .128 In Latvia, in cases where registration has been denied, the 124 In its Communication No. 1296/2004 of 7 August 2007, the United Nations Human Rights Committee commented on the case of Belyatsky et al. v. Belarus: “ The mere existence of reasonable and objective justifications for limiting the right to freedom of association is not sufficient. The State party must further demonstrate that the prohibition of an association is necessary to avert a real and not only hypothetical danger to national security or democratic order, and that less intrusive measures would be insufficient to achieve the same purpose.” See Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 72881/01, 5 October 2006, para. 76: “ The Court reiterates that the list of exceptions to freedom of religion and assembly, as contained in Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention, is exhaustive. The exceptions to the rule of freedom of association are to be construed strictly and only convincing and compelling reasons can justify restrictions on that freedom. In determining whether a necessity within the meaning of paragraph 2 of these Convention provisions exists, the States have only a limited margin of appreciation…” Also see Gorzelik and Others v. Poland, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 44158/98, 17 February 2004, paras. 94 and 95: “ The State’ s power to protect its institutions and citizens from associations that might jeopardise them must be used sparingly, as exceptions to the rule of freedom of association are to be construed strictly and only convincing and compelling reasons can justify restrictions on that freedom. Any interference must correspond to a ‘pressing social need’ ; thus, the notion ‘necessary’ does not have the flexibility of such expressions as ‘useful’ or ‘desirable’ .” See Council of Europe, op. cit., note 16, Principles 31-32: “ 31. Legal personality should only be refused where there has been a failure to submit all the clearly prescribed documents required, if a name has been used that is patently misleading or is not adequately distinguishable from that of an existing natural or legal person in the country concerned, or if there is an objective in the statutes which is clearly incompatible with the law. 32. Any evaluation of the acceptability of the objectives of an NGO when it seeks legal personality should be well informed and respectful of the notion of political pluralism and must not be driven by prejudices.” 125 Information provided by Armenia’ s human rights defender; Slovenia’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 1 July 2008. 126 Contribution from the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina to this report, 28 May 2008. 127 Moscow, 1991, paras. 18.2-18.4: “ (18.2) Everyone will have an effective means of redress against administrative decisions, so as to guarantee respect for fundamental rights and ensure legal integrity. (18.3) To the same end, there will be effective means of redress against administrative regulations for individuals affected thereby. (18.4) The participating States will endeavour to provide for judicial review of such regulations and decisions.” 128 Portugal’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 25 May 2008, citing Art. 124 of the Portuguese Code of Administrative Procedure. 29