30 course of its meeting of December Sth, 1927, that the legal question had not been settled. On this point, the Court refers to what it has set out above. In the Counter-Case, the Agent for the Polish Government has, in respect of the third German contention, submitted observations which may be construed as making a reservation with regard to the plea that the suit could not be entertained by the Court. For he stated that he was not in a position to express any opinion with regard to the last part (the third contention) of the German submissions, because the German Government had nowhere in its Case supplied an example illustrating that contention and because, in the opinion of the Polish Government, it is not incumbent upon the courts to enunciate general principles otherwise than in regard to actual facts before them. However, the Polish Government reserves to itself the right of submitting its observations in the event of its adversary making a more precise claim and adducing concrete facts. The German Government having in its written Reply adduced certain facts which in its opinion showed the necessity for obtaining a decision by the Court in conformity svith that Government's contention, the Agent for the Polish Government has not in his written Rejoinder stated anything in respect of that contention. In his pleadings before the Court, he confined himself either to putting in issue the existence of the facts invoked or to denying that these facts could be attributed to the Polish Government, O; that they could be taken as demonstrating that there had been treatment of a discriminatory character to the detriment of the German minority schools in Polish Upper Silesia. There is thus no actual plea of inadmissibility for the Court to consider. JUDGMENT NO. 12.-UPPER SILESIA (MINORITY SCHOOLS) l II. Before considering the case on its merits, the Court deems i t necessary to establish what is the relationship existing between the provisions of Division 1 of the third Part of the Geneva Convention and those which are to be found in Division I I of the same Part. The Court in this respect recalls the fact that the provisions of Division 1 are provisions the terms of which were settled beforehand by the Conference of Ambassadors. They had to be