426_46 substantive_scope 46. The State must act as the ultimate guarantor of the principles of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness (see Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 276, p. 16, § 38, and Identoba, cited above, § 94). Genuine, effective freedom of peaceful assembly cannot, therefore, 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 object and purpose of Article 11 of the Convention. This provision sometimes requires positive measures to be taken, even in the sphere of relations between individuals, if need be (see Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria, 21 June 1988, § 32, Series A no. 139; Wilson and the National Union of Journalists and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 30668/96, 30671/96 and 30678/96, § 41, ECHR 2002-V; Ouranio Toxo v. Greece, no. 74989/01, 20 October 2005, § 37; Promo Lex and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 42757/09, § 22, 24 February 2015; and Identoba, cited above, § 94). That positive obligation is of particular importance for persons holding unpopular views or belonging to minorities, because they are more vulnerable to victimisation (see Bączkowski and Others v. Poland, no. 1543/06, § 64, 3 May 2007).