be treated as though they belonged thereto. That, in the opinion of the Court, is. a consequence which the contracting Parties accepted in order to avoid the much greater disadvantages which would arise from verification or dispute by the authorities. If, according to what has been stated above, a declaration which clearly does not conform to the facts is to be considered as not in conformity with the Geneva Convention, it does not follow, as the Polish Government appears to maintain, that the prohibition to verify 'or dispute ceases to be applicable in such a case. The prohibition which is expressed in unqualified terms cannot be subject to any restriction. But it must not be inferred from this that the construction given above, according to which the declaration must on principle be in conformity with the facts, is therefore of -no value. I t is indeed of some importance to establish what is the situation at law. Turning, then, to the second contention advanced by the German Government, the Court recalls that this contention implies that persons legally responsible for the education of a pupil or a child have unfettered liberty "to choose the language of instruction and the corresponding school for such pupil or child, subject to no verification, dispute, pressure or hindrance on the part of the authorities". The provisions which the German Government invoked in support of the contention are, in addition to Article 74, the interpretation of which .the Court has given above, Articles 106 and 131 of the Geneva Convention, the terms of which are as 'f ollows : , "Article 106. I. - Il sera créé une école minoritaire, sur la demande d'un ressortissant, appuyée par les personnes légalement responsables de l'éducation d'au moins quarante enfants d'une minorité de langue, à condition que ces enfants soient ressortissants de YEtat, appartiennent à une même 5