Court for an advisory opinion on the questions formulated therein. *** [37] The request submitted to the Court by the Council of the League of Nations first asks “whether, regard being had to [p15] the above-mentioned Declaration of October 2nd, 1921, as a whole, the Albanian Government is justified in its plea that, as the abolition of the private schools in Albania constitutes a general measure applicable to the majority as well as to the minority, it is in conformity with the letter and the spirit of the stipulations laid down in Article 5, first paragraph, of that Declaration’’. [38] The contention of the Albanian Government is that the above-mentioned clause imposed no other obligation upon it, in educational matters, than to grant to its nationals belonging to racial, religious, or linguistic minorities a right equal to that possessed by other Albanian nationals. Once the latter have ceased to be entitled to have private schools, the former cannot claim to have them either. This conclusion, which is alleged to follow quite naturally from the wording of paragraph 1 of Article 5, would, it is contended, be in complete conformity with the meaning and spirit of the treaties for the protection of minorities, an essential characteristic of which is the full and complete equality of all nationals of the State, whether belonging to the majority or to the minority. On the other hand, it is argued, any interpretation which would compel Albania to respect the private minority schools would create a privilege in favour of the minority and run counter to the essential idea of the law governing minorities. Moreover, as the minority régime is an extraordinary regime, constituting a derogation from the ordinary law, the text in question should, in case of doubt, be construed in the manner most favourable to the sovereignty of the Albanian State. [39] According to the explanations furnished to the Court by the Greek Government, the fundamental idea of Article 5 of the Declaration was on the contrary to guarantee freedom of education to the minorities by granting them the right to retain their existing schools and to establish others, if they desired; equality of treatment is, in the Greek Governments’ opinion, merely an adjunct to that right, and cannot impede the purpose in view, which is to ensure full and effectual liberty in matters of education. Moreover, the application of the same régime to a majority as to a minority, whose needs are quite different, would only create an apparent equality, whereas the Albanian Declaration, consistently with ordinary minority law, was designed to ensure a genuine and effective equality, not merely a formal equality. * [40] The Declaration of October 2nd, 1921, belongs to the numerous category of international acts designed for the protection of minorities. [p16] [41] The Greek Government recognizes this fact, but it contends that the Declaration must be construed in the light of the historical and social conditions of Albania, and with regard, in particular, to the fact that the rights of the minorities had been long in existence in the Near East, where they were known by the name of community rights. [42] In accordance with this line of argument, Counsel for the above-mentioned Government gave prominence, in the course of his oral statement, to the points of difference which exist between the Albanian Declaration and the other treaties and declarations of the same kind which have been mentioned above. Thus, he drew attention to the insertion in the second sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the words “to maintain”, which do not appear in the other treaties and declarations, and which, in his submission, were intended to ensure the continuation of the religious and educational autonomy that was enjoyed by the Greek communities in Albania.