decision may be contested in a submission to the chief state notary of the register of enterprises. The decision of the notary may be appealed to a court.129 Freedom of peaceful assembly The freedom of peaceful assembly is an important means for defenders to express themselves. Peaceful mass protest can be a means of raising human rights issues with the authorities, of informing and mobilizing the general population in defence of human rights, and of putting pressure on the authorities to rectify human rights abuses. It forms one of the basic pillars of a democratic society. Defenders may assemble with respect to issues that may be provocative or even offensive to some. In a democratic society, such considerations are insufficient to ban or limit the right to assemble peacefully.130 The history of human rights has shown that many protests, initially viewed with suspicion and derision by large segments of society, were later seen as heroic and pioneering efforts to ensure that all human beings enjoy their human rights fully and without prejudice. Notification versus authorization As noted above, the cause of defenders may not always be popular or tolerated by society in general, including those in positions of public authority. In this light, a system whereby those seeking to assemble notify the authorities is better than one requiring prior authorization. The majority of states responding to ODIHR’ s questionnaire indicated that they require only notification of assemblies, not active approval by a public authority for assemblies to be held, and that they allow spontaneous demonstrations. In Slovenia, for example, the obligation to announce a public assembly and to obtain authorization for it does not depend on the content or purpose of the assembly but on other circumstances. In accordance with the regulations governing public assemblies, the organizer must only announce a public assembly. However, if the organizer intends to 129 Latvia’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 28 May 2008. See Baczkowski and Others v. Poland, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 1543/06, 3 May 2007, paras. 62-64, and the sources cited there: “ 62. While in the context of Article 11 the Court has often referred to the essential role played by political parties in ensuring pluralism and democracy, associations formed for other purposes are also important to the proper functioning of democracy. For pluralism is also built on the genuine recognition of, and respect for, diversity and the dynamics of cultural traditions, ethnic and cultural identities, religious beliefs, artistic, literary and socio-economic ideas and concepts. The harmonious interaction of persons and groups with varied identities is essential for achieving social cohesion. It is only natural that, where a civil society functions in a healthy manner, the participation of citizens in the democratic process is to a large extent achieved through belonging to associations in which they may integrate with each other and pursue common objectives collectively … . 63. Referring to the hallmarks of a ‘democratic society’ , the Court has attached particular importance to pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. In that context, it has held that although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of the majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position … . 64. In Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria … the Court described the State as the ultimate guarantor of the principle of pluralism … . A genuine and effective respect for freedom of association and assembly cannot be reduced to a mere duty on the part of the State not to interfere; a purely negative conception would not be compatible with the purpose of Article 11 nor with that of the Convention in general. There may thus be positive obligations to secure the effective enjoyment of these freedoms … . This obligation is of particular importance for persons holding unpopular views or belonging to minorities, because they are more vulnerable to victimisation.” 130 30