Secondly, it should be noted that the new provisions establish the principle of the internal democracy of parties, which is to be welcomed: while recognising the different approaches taken by states to the regulation of political parties, the Venice Commission has had occasion to indicate that parties should “respect democratic requirements” within their internal organisation. At the same time, regulation of internal party functions “must be narrowly constructed as to not unduly interfere with the right of parties as free associations”. For example, according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, “while the State may introduce certain minimum requirements as to the role and structure of associations’ governing bodies, the authorities should not intervene in the internal organisational functioning of associations to such a far-reaching extent as to ensure observance by an association of every single formality provided by its own charter” or lay down the manner in which its conferences are organised. The Venice Commission considers that Articles 24 et seq. of the draft law are confined to certain basic requirements (e.g., being headed by structures elected freely and democratically by their members and holding their regular conferences within the timeframes laid down in their statutes) and do not place excessive restrictions on the freedom of political parties.