ligations but only their beneficiaries (or even objects).
The second point follows from this: minorities did not have the title to bring action against anybody, since, in the case they had grievances, they could not elicit the protection of the Council just because of their existence. Their petition had only an informative character; a member of the Council could then draw attention to the fact that protection procedure should be necessary. Accordingly, only members of the Council could act as parties during the procedure and not in the name of the minorities but only in their interest.
The third point is that not purely law but also political considerations led the bodies of the League of Nations in their dealings with the complaints of the minorities. 
The procedural law of minority protection under the aegis of the League of Nations had been consolidated by the end of 1925. The "procédure écrite",  that is, the procedure in force at the end of 1925 based on resolutions can be summarised as follows:
A petition concerning minorities is submitted to the Secretariat General of the League of Nations. On the basis of the five points of Article 1 of the Council Resolution of 5 September 1923, the Secretariat decides whether the petition is acceptable or not. In case it is, this is brought to the attention of the government concerned (against whom the complaint is lodged). Should this government object to the acceptability of the petition for any reason, the secretary-general would present the question of acceptability to the President of the Council, who could ask the help of two other Council members during the examination of the problem (they formed the tripartite committee). This procedural question could be put on the agenda of the Council at the request of the state concerned.
If the petition was deemed acceptable, the state concerned had three weeks after the communication of this to inform the secretary-general whether it wanted to comment on the petition or not. In the case it did, then it had a period of two months to do so. The president of the Council could extend the deadline upon the request of the state concerned or when circumstances required so. The petition and the comments of the state were then presented jointly to the members of the Council. All members of the League of Nations could receive these documents but only at their explicit request.
Subsequently, the president of the Council asked two other members of the Council to join him in examining the petition and the comments (which usually took place during the following session of the Council). If any of them or any other member of the Council deemed it important, it could bring the petition to the attention of the Council, and request that it be put on the agenda. The duties of the Council were twofold: first, it had to establish whether any infraction, or any danger of infraction, of any of these obligations did actually take place or not. Second, in the case the answer was yes, the Council had to take measures to put an end to this infraction. Neither the treaties nor the Assembly or Council resolutions provided for the elaboration of the rules of procedure before the Council ("procedure non-écrite"). It always proceeded as it seemed right and correct with respect to the case in concern. During this procedure, it could gather data, request the parties to present their statement in writing or orally, hear experts, visited the location, and took various measures. According to Article 5 of the Covenant, the Council had to bring a decision agreed to by all members of the Council on whether the infraction was in fact real or not. If it was, the Council thereupon could take such action (in the case of the Serb-Croatian-Slovenian "implement such measures") and give such direction as it deemed proper and effective in the circumstances. It could, in general, order - in reality, request - the state to amend the laws and decrees injurious to the minorities in the shortest time possible, to repeal these or not to let them enter in force at all. Should this have