minority to possess the institutions mentioned in this paragraph of Article 5 must always be recognized. [96] The undersigned are unable to concur in this view. Article 5 does not constitute a mere repetition of the equality before the law which has already been prescribed by Article 4 of the Declaration. It is intended to complete it. Article 4 prescribes for all Albanian citizens equality before the law and the enjoyment of the same civil and political rights without distinction as to race, language or religion. The value of the addition provided by Article 5 is that it emphasizes the principle that the members of the minority - over and above the theoretical equality mentioned in Article 4 - are to enjoy the same treatment and the same security in law and in fact as the other Albanian nationals: that means that, on the one hand, in actual practice they are to be treated in the same manner as their fellow-nationals and, on the other hand, there is to be given to them equal opportunity to give effect to their rights and to have them respected. This provision, therefore, is intended to reinforce the idea of equality - to exclude an outward equality which would be no more than a platonic or paper equality. It is intended to render the equality effective and real. There is nothing, however, in the wording of the provision to show that this equality in law may be disregarded and replaced by a system of different treatments for the minority and the majority so as to establish an equilibrium between them. [97] The intention of the authors of the text appears to be that of consolidating the legal situation of the members of the [p27] minority, not that of depriving it of the sound basis provided by equality and of introducing an elusive search after a perfect equilibrium. [98] Furthermore, the suppression of the private schools - even if it may prejudice to some appreciable extent the interests of a minority - does not oblige them to abandon an essential part of the characteristic life of a minority. In interpreting Article 5, the question whether the possession of particular institutions may or may not be important to the minority cannot constitute the decisive consideration. There is another consideration entitled to equal weight. That is the extent to which the monopoly of education may be of importance to the State. The two considerations cannot be weighed one against the other: Neither of them - in the absence of a clear stipulation to that effect - can provide an objective standard for determining which of them is to prevail. [99] International justice must proceed upon the footing of applying treaty stipulations impartially to the rights of the State and to the rights of the minority, and the method of doing so is to adhere to the terms of the treaty - as representing the common will of the parties - as closely as possible. [100] If the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Declaration adopted in the Opinion of the Court is well-founded, there is one source of information as to the meaning of the minorities treaties in which one would expect to find this principle clearly enunciated. It is the letter signed by the President of the Peace Conference in Paris in 1919, and addressed to M. Paderewski, the leader of the Polish delegation. [101] It is common ground that the Albanian Declaration is one of the series of instruments for the protection of minorities, and that the first of these instruments was the Treaty of June 28th, 1919, between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and Poland. [102] Albania signed the Declaration of October 2nd, 1921, in order to give effect to the Resolution adopted by the First Assembly of the League in 1920 recommending that if the Baltic and Caucasian States and Albania were admitted to the League they should take steps to ensure the application of the general principles laid down in the minorities treaties. [103] Albania made no objection to doing so and signed in due course a Declaration which