to render the clause in question illusory; for, if so, the stipulation which confers so important a
right on the members of the minority would not only add nothing to what has already been
provided in Article 4, but it would become a weapon by which the State could deprive the
minority régime of a great part of its practical value. It should be observed that in its Advisory
Opinion of September 15th, 1923, concerning the question of the acquisition of Polish
nationality (Opinion No. 7), the Court referred to the opinion which it had already expressed in
Advisory Opinion No. 6 to the effect that “an interpretation which would deprive the
Minorities Treaty of a great part of its value is inadmissible”.
[70] If the object and effect of the second sentence of the paragraph is to ensure that Albanian
nationals belonging to racial, linguistic or religious minorities shall in fact enjoy the same
treatment as other Albanian nationals, it is clear that the expression “equal right” must be
construed on the assumption that the right stipulated must always be accorded to the members
of the minority. The idea embodied in the expression “equal right” is that the right thus
conferred on the members of the minority cannot in any case be inferior to the corresponding
right of other Albanian nationals. In other words, the members of the minority must always
enjoy the right stipulated in the Declaration, and, in addition, any more extensive rights which
the State may accord to other nationals. The right provided by the Declaration is in fact the
minimum necessary to guarantee effective and genuine equality as between the majority and
the minority; but if the members of the majority should be granted a right more extensive than
that which is provided, the principle of equality of treatment would come into play and would
require that the more extensive right should also be granted to the members of the minority.
[p21]
[71] The construction which the Court places on paragraph 1 of Article 5 is confirmed by the
history of this provision.
[72] No. 5 of the proposals which the Greek Government submitted to the Council of the
League of Nations on May 17th, 1921, and which have in part been reproduced above, was
worded as follows:
“That all Albanian subjects belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities should enjoy
the same treatment and the same security, both in fact and in law, as other Albanian subjects;
and that they should be entitled to establish, to administer and to control at their own expense,
charitable, religious or scholastic institutions of all kinds, to employ their own language and to
practise their own religion freely without interference by the authorities, provided that the
interest of public order is safeguarded.”
[73] It is clear that the right of minorities to have their own charitable, religious or educational
institutions was envisaged in that proposal as a right which they were to enjoy in any case,
irrespective of the legal situation of other Albanian nationals.
[74] This proposal was not contested by the Albanian Government in its reply of June 21st of
the same year, the relevant part of which has been quoted above; and the report submitted to
the Council by the British representative on October 2nd observed that the Declaration met
most of the Greek Government’s suggestions. The points mentioned in the report in which it
failed to do so, in no case affect the subject of the proposal in question. That being so, the
Court is unable to attach any importance to the fact that the word “equal” does not appear in
the fifth Greek proposal, whereas it is used in Article 5 of the Albanian Declaration which, in
this respect, follows the exact wording of the minorities treaties.
[75] On the other hand, it was probably with the object of meeting, in so far as was consistent
with the general minority régime, the desire expressed by the Greek Government in its sixth
proposal that the words “to maintain”, which do not appear in Article 8 of the Treaty with