learned that there is still, for a number of minorities, a shortage of available textbooks in the minority language and/or a shortage of qualified teachers. In such circumstances, it is difficult to offer an education in bi-lingual schools and native language schools, which is of the same quality as that offered in Hungarian”.33 The Advisory Committee has observed that many State Parties refer to the lack of teachers as an excuse for not offering minority or bilingual education. In its Opinion on Norway, the Advisory Committee called (under Article 12) for increased efforts and allocation of adequate resources in order to address to lack of qualified teachers who can teach in Finnish. In the Opinion on Sweden, the Advisory Committee called on the authorities to legal provisions which conditioned the obligation to provide minority language teaching upon the availability of teachers.34 The term ‘adequate’ in Article 12(2) – as well as in other similar clauses of the Framework Convention – accentuates once more the need for State Parties to collect baseline data and make needs’ assessments. It should also be noted that bilingual and multilingual societies and schools require teachers with appropriate bilingual, multilingual and intercultural training. Teachers must therefore be recruited actively from both majority and minority groups and be given training equipping them to work in multilingual and intercultural environments. This is particularly important for teachers specialized in the teaching of history and religion. Kin-state support in the field of education consists usually of scholarship schemes, reduction of fees for the use of educational facilities, support to teaching in the kin-language, training for teachers in the kin-language, access to higher education and recognition of diplomas. The Advisory Committee finds useful the guidelines developed by the European Commission for Democracy through Law, of the Council of Europe, better know as the Venice Commission, in its Report on the Preferential Treatment of National Minorities by the KinState (2001).35 The Venice Commission reminds that kin-state support must respect the principle of friendly neighbourly relations as provided in Article 2 of the Framework Convention. Indeed, Article 18 of the Framework Convention encourages the development of bilateral and multilateral agreements between neighbouring countries as well as transfrontier co-operation in general. Such co-operation can enhance positive developments for both minorities and majorities. The Venice Commission notes also that international law does not accept the exercise of State powers outside the national borders, unless there is specific permission to the contrary. Most importantly from the point of view of persons belonging to national minorities, the Venice Commission observes that differential treatment, including through support by kin-states, may constitute discrimination if it is not objectively and reasonably justified and is proportionate to the aim pursued. The Advisory Committee has dealt with kin-state issues in the field of education under Article 12 of the Framework Convention. Article 4 is also relevant when kin-state support creates differential treatment that may amount to discrimination which enhances the vulnerability of groups with no kin-states. The Advisory Committee has indeed emphasized in several opinions that over-dependence upon kin-state support may place some groups in a disadvantaged position, such as the Yezidis and Assyrians in Armenia and that “the 33 Advisory Committee Opinion on Hungary ACFC/INF/OP/I(2001)004, paragraph 39. Advisory Committee Opinions on Norway ACFC/INF/OP/I(2003)003 and Sweden ACFC/INF/OP/I(2003)006. 35 CDL-INF (2001)19. 34 19