during the XIXth century. No document, however, which has been brought to the attention of the Court, has mentioned any occasion upon which there have been imposed upon new States, before the date of the Polish Treaty, obligations covering educational matters or conferring upon minorities an unconditional right to maintain institutions of the character referred to in Article 5. If the conclusion reached in the Opinion of the Court is well-founded as to the interpretation of this Article 5, paragraph 1, it is difficult to understand the statement in the Clemenceau letter that this article is “in accordance with precedent”. [112] Among the papers which the Court has had before it in the present case are the various communications which passed between the Secretary-General of the League and the representatives of the Albanian and Greek Governments before the signature of the Albanian Declaration in October, 1921. [113] As said above, what the Assembly Resolution of 1920 called upon Albania to do if admitted to the League was to ensure the application of the general principles laid down in the minority treaties. [114] This wording was repeated in the note sent by the Secretary-General of the League to the Albanian Government. The Albanian Government in its reply of February 9th, 1921, said that it adhered entirely to the general provisions concerning minorities, and proceeded to give full information as to the situation in Albania on the subject. [115] In May, 1921, the Director of the Permanent Greek Secretariat with the League of Nations sent a note to the Secretariat of the League in which the question was raised whether in the case of Albania it would be sufficient to apply only the general principles laid down in the minority treaty. The note went on to urge that in view of the peculiar conditions [p30] in Albania she ought to subscribe to special provisions. It then set out a series of suggestions for inclusion in the proposed Declaration and described them as “outre les principes généraux inscrits dans les traités de minorités”’. The fifth suggestion is worded as follows: “50 Que tous les ressortissants albanais appartenant à des minorités de race, de religion ou de langue jouissent du тêте traitement et de la même sêcuritê en droit et en fait que les autres ressortissants albanais, et qu’ils aient le droit d’étahlir, d’administrer et de contrôler â leurs propres frais des institutions charitables, religieuses ou scolaires de tous degrés avec droit de se servir de leur propre langue et d’exercer leur propre religion librement sans immixtion des autorités, excepté dans le cas d’ordre public.” [116] The general similarity between this suggestion on the one hand and the normal type of minority provision exemplified by Article 8 of the Polish Treaty is remarkable: the difference is that with regard to the establishment of charitable institutions and schools it drops the word “equal”. The result would be to confer the right unconditionally. [117] The Albanian note in reply, after dealing with the general considerations advanced in the Greek note, adds some remarks with regard to each of the Greek suggestions. As to No. 5, all that it says is: “ Le traitement égal en droit et en fait existe pour tous les ciloyens albanais sans distinction de religion.” [118] It is stated in the Opinion of the Court that the Greek suggestion was not contested by the Albanian Government. The undersigned are unable to accept that view. [119] The Greek proposal was only made because Greece considered that something going beyond the provision of the normal minority treaty was wanted. To any such stipulations Albania had not been asked by the League to agree, nor had she ever consented to do so. “Equal treatment” was all that the minority treaties required, and the existence of such equal