indicate equality between the same two categories, viz. the members of the minority and the other Albanian nationals. The second sentence is added because the general principle laid down in the first sentence mentions only “treatment and security in law and in fact”—a phrase so indefinite that without further words of precision it would be doubtful whether it covered the right to [p25] establish and maintain charitable, religious and social institutions and schools and other educational establishments, but the particular application of the general principle of identity of treatment and security remains governed by the dominating element of equality as between the two categories. [89] The word “equal” implies that the right so enjoyed must be equal in measure to the right enjoyed by somebody else. “They shall have an equal right” means that the right to be enjoyed by the people in question is to be equal in measure to that enjoyed by some other group. A right which is unconditional and independent of that enjoyed by other people cannot with accuracy be described as an “equal right”. “Equality” necessarily implies the existence of some extraneous criterion by reference to which the content is to be determined. [90] If the text of the first paragraph of Article 5 is considered alone, it does not seem that there could be any doubt as to its interpretation. It is, however, laid down in the Opinion from which the undersigned dissent that if the general purpose of the minority treaties is borne in mind and also the contents of the Albanian Declaration taken as a whole, it will be found that the “equal right” provided for in the first paragraph of Article 5 cannot mean a right of which the extent is measured by that enjoyed by other Albanian nationals, and that it must imply an unconditional right, a right of which the members of the minority cannot be deprived. [91] If that interpretation of Article 5, paragraph 1, is correct, there can be no doubt that the closing of all private schools in Albania in virtue of Articles 206 and 207 of the Constitution of 1933 would not be consistent with the Albanian Declaration of 1921. [92] The point at issue may shortly be described as being whether the intention of this article in the Albanian Declaration was to rule out discrimination as regards the maintenance and establishment of charitable institutions and schools, etc., or whether the intention was to grant to the minority an unconditional right to maintain and create their own charitable institutions and schools. [93] The conclusion at which the undersigned have arrived is that it was the former. The view adopted by the Court is that the paragraph intended to confer an unconditional right. [94] As the opinion of the Court is based on the general purpose which the minorities treaties are presumed to have had in view and not on the text of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Albanian Declaration, it involves to some extent a departure from the principles hitherto adopted by this Court in the interpretation [p26] of international instruments, that in presence of a clause which is reasonably clear the Court is bound to apply it as it stands without considering whether other provisions might with advantage have been added to it or substituted for it, and this even if the results following from it may in some particular hypothesis seem unsatisfactory. [95] The conclusion reached by the Court as to the interpretation of this phrase in paragraph 1 of Article 5 may be summarized as follows : Equality in law and fact not merely excludes all discrimination between the majority and the minority, but may necessitate different treatment of the majority and the minority so as to produce an equilibrium between their respective situations. The institutions enumerated in this first paragraph of Article 5 are essential to the minority if that minority is to enjoy the same treatment as the majority. For the same reason the preservation of a right for the minority to maintain private schools is necessary in order to exclude a privileged position for the majority. The phrase “equal right” in the second sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 5 must therefore be interpreted upon the basis that a right for the