[p19] belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities as compared with other Albanian nationals, it is natural to conclude that the “same treatment and security in law and in fact” implies a notion of equality which is peculiar to the relations between the majority and minorities. [62] This special conception finds expression in the idea of an equality in fact which in Article 5 supplements equality in law. All Albanian nationals enjoy the equality in law stipulated in Article 4 ; on the other hand, the equality between members of the majority and of the minority must, according to the terms of Article 5, be an equality in law and in fact. [63] It is perhaps not easy to define the distinction between the notions of equality in fact and equality in law ; nevertheless, it may be said that the former notion excludes the idea of a merely formal equality; that is indeed what the Court laid down in its Advisory Opinion of September 10th, 1923, concerning the case of the German settlers in Poland (Opinion No. 6), in which it said that: “There must be equality in fact as well as ostensible legal equality in the sense of the absence of discrimination in the words of the law.” [64] Equality in law precludes discrimination of any kind; whereas equality in fact may involve the necessity of different treatment in order to attain a result which establishes an equilibrium between different situations. [65] It is easy to imagine cases in which equality of treatment of the majority and of the minority, whose situation and requirements are different, would result in inequality in fact; treatment of this description would run counter to the first sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 5. The equality between members of the majority and of the minority must be an effective, genuine equality ; that is the meaning of this provision. [66] The second sentence of this paragraph provides as follows: “In particular they shall have an equal right to maintain, manage and control at their own expense or to establish in the future, charitable, religious and social institutions, schools and other educational establishments, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their religion freely therein.” [67] This sentence of the paragraph being linked to the first by the words “in particular”, it is natural to conclude that it envisages a particularly important illustration of the application of the principle of identical treatment in law and in fact that is stipulated in the first sentence of the paragraph. For the institutions mentioned in the second sentence are indispensable to enable the minority to enjoy the same treatment as the [p20] majority, not only in law but also in fact. The abolition of these institutions, which alone can satisfy the special requirements of the minority groups, and their replacement by government institutions, would destroy this equality of treatment, for its effect would be to deprive the minority of the institutions appropriate to its needs, whereas the majority would continue to have them supplied in the institutions created by the State. [68] Far from creating a privilege in favour of the minority, as the Albanian Government avers, this stipulation ensures that the majority shall not be given a privileged situation as compared with the minority. [69] It may further be observed that, even disregarding the link between the two parts of paragraph 1 of Article 5, it seems difficult to maintain that the adjective “equal”, which qualifies the word “right”, has the effect of empowering the State to abolish the right, and thus