JUDGMENT NO. 12.-UPPER SILESIA (MINORITY SCHOOLS) 33 there exists a gap which must necessarily be filled by subsequent stipulations. The Treaty would fail in its purpose if it were not to be considered as an established fact that persons who belonged de facto to such a minority must enjoy the protection which had been stipulated. If this is the meaning which must be attributed to the provisions of the Minorities Treaty embodied in Division 1 of the third Part of the Geneva Convention with the purpose of conferring upon them the character indicated above, it does not, however, follow that the contracting Parties were unable validly to agree to extend the rights provided as regards minorities also to persons who do not in the normal course come within the conception of a minority. I t would not be in conformity with a true construction of the provisions of the Minorities Treaty nor of the provisions of Article XV of the final Protocol referred to above, to consider as excluded the extension of the advantages of protection stipulated on behalf of minorities to perçons who in fact do not belong to a minority. But, on the other hand, such an extension cannot be presumed. On the contrary, there is a presumption that the provisions of the Convention are in conformity with the principles underlying the Minorities Treaty. Among those of the articles of the Convention adduced by the German Government in support of its contention, Article 74 alone refers in general to the question whether a person does or does not belong to a racial, linguistic or religious minority. Article 131 solely deals with a special question, that of the language of the pupil or child. Article 74 runs as follows : "The question whether a person does or does not belong to a racial, linguistic or religious minority may not be verified or disputed by the authorities." Does this stipulation provide a sufficient basis for the construction attributed thereto by the German Government and according to which i t is a question of intention alone (the "subjective principle") ? The Court does not think so. In the first place it should be observed that the article does not state in specific terms that it is a declaration by a person which is decisive as to whether such person belongs to a