 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 taken place indeed, it would have been most proper from purely a legal aspect. However, the Council could not impose sanctions, so it contacted the state in concern prior to the final decision and requested information on how it planned to settle the situation described in the petition. If the Council deemed the answer of the government acceptable, it was accepted. There was only one sanction to threaten the given state with: according to Article 16 of the Covenant, it could be declared to be no longer a Member of the League by a vote of the Council.
In the case any difference of opinion as to questions concerning minorities arose between the given government and any member of the Council, it was to be held a dispute of an international character, which, under Article 14 of the Covenant, could be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court was to be considered final and has the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant. The parties were obliged to comply with the award, but the League had no instrument to force the parties to do so, unless we consider the power of international public opinion such an instrument. Under Article 14 of the Covenant, the Council was entitled to refer a dispute or a question to the Permanent Court of International Justice for an advisory opinion. The avis consultatif was not binding but the weight of the court and public opinion did have an influence on the final position of the Council.
I have attempted to present how the legal framework of minority protection evolved through the resolutions of the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations. During the operation of the minority protection system, however, "procédure écrite" was completed by "procédure non écrite", which referred to the actual procedures of certain institutions and to those unwritten rules that accompanied the petitions starting from their submission until a decision was reached on them or they were dismissed. The working practices of th