JUDGMENT NO. 12.-UPPER . SILESIA (MINORITY SCHOOLS) 34 minority, nor that such declaration must be a declaration of intention alone and not a declaration determining what such person considers to be the de facto situation in the particular case. The prohibition as regards verification or dispute which is comprised in the article can be quite easily understood even if the construction placed upon it by Germany be rejected. There is reason to believe that, in the conditions which exist in Upper Silesia, a multitude of cases occur in which the question whether a person belongs to a minority particularly of race or language does not clearly appear from the facts. Such an uncertainty might for example exist, as regards language, where either a person does not speak literary German or literary Polish, or where he knows and makes use of several languages, and, as regards race, in the case of mixed marriages. If the authorities wish to verify or dispute the substance of a declaration by a person, it is very unlikely that in such cases they would be able to reach a result mofe nearly corresponding to the actual state of facts. Such a proceeding on the part of the authorities would, moreover, very easily assume in public opinion the aspect of a vexatious measure which would inflame political passions and would counteract the aims of pacification which are also at the basis of the stipulations concerning the protection of minorities. In the opinion of the Court, the prohibition of verification and dispute has as its object not the substitution of a new principle for that which in the nature of things and according to the provisions of the Minorities Treaty determines membership of a racial, linguistic or religious minority, but solely the great in Upper avoidance of the disadvantages-particularly Silesia-which would arise from a verification or dispute on the part of the authorities as regards such membership. That the principle has remained unchanged is further confirmed by Article 131, which, as will be shown below, provides for a declaration with regard to a question of fact (quelle est la tangue d ' u n ÉEève ou enfant ?) and not a declaration of intention. It must be adrnitted that the prohibition of any verification or dispute on the part of the authorities may lead to certain persons, who, in fact, do not belong to a minority, having to