minorities. The wording "as far as possible" indicates that such instruction is dependent on the available resources of the Party concerned. 76. The text deliberately refrains from defining "sufficient demand", a flexible form of wording which allows Parties to take account of their countries’ own particular circumstances. Parties have a choice of means and arrangements in ensuring such instruction, taking their particular educational system into account. 77. The alternatives referred to in this paragraph – "opportunities for being taught the minority language or for receiving instruction in this language" – are not mutually exclusive. Even though Article 14, paragraph 2, imposes no obligation upon States to do both, its wording does not prevent the State Parties from implementing the teaching of the minority language as well as the instruction in the minority language. Bilingual instruction may be one of the means of achieving the objective of this provision. The obligation arising from this paragraph could be extended to pre-school education. Paragraph 3 78. The opportunities for being taught the minority language or for receiving instruction in this language are without prejudice to the learning of the official language or the teaching in this language. Indeed, knowledge of the official language is a factor of social cohesion and integration. 79. It is for States where there is more than one official language to settle the particular questions which the implementation of this provision shall entail.’ 2.3.2 Main Issues The structure of Article 14 It is significant that Article 14 (1) of the Framework Convention refers explicitly to “the right” to learn one’s minority language. Article 14 (1) is passive in character in referring to "the ‘right to learn’ as opposed to the active form in Article 14 (2) ‘being taught’ and ‘receiving instruction’. State Parties must then first of all recognise this right in their legal and educational systems, even if this does not automatically entail an economic responsibility for the provision of such education in all circumstances. In some cases, the Advisory Committee has criticized the absence of provisions recognizing a right to be educated in the Roma language in spite of similar provisions existing for many other minority languages.43 Article 14 (2) is qualified by a number of clauses, including through phrases such as “in areas inhabited … traditionally or in substantial numbers”, “if there is sufficient demand”, “as far as possible”, “within the framework of their education systems”, “adequate opportunities”. The right under Article 14 (2) consists of two elements (instruction of or in the minority language) which have been seen by the Advisory Committee as alternatives which are not mutually exclusive. 44 Even though Article 14 (2), imposes no obligation upon States to do both, its wording does not prevent the State Parties from implementing the teaching of the minority language as well as the instruction in the minority language. Bilingual instruction may be one of the means of achieving the objective of this provision. The Explanatory Report reminds us that the provision is relevant also to pre-school education. Notwithstanding the clauses in Article 14 (2) allowing for considerable flexibility for State Parties, the Advisory Committee is of the view that State Parties must actively pursue needs’ 43 Advisory Committee Opinions on Slovakia ACFC/INF/OP/I(2001)001 and Romania ACFC/INF/OP/I(2002)001. 44 Advisory Committee Opinions on Sweden ACFC/INF/OP/I(2003)006 and Norway ACFC/INF/OP/I(2003)003. 24