 Accordingly, Estonia and Latvia informed the organisation about the provisions that their constitutions and legislation included with respect to minorities; the acknowledgement of this notice established the guarantees.
 See Journal Officiel (1932) 1347-1349., in: Pircher. ibid. 67.
 See the enumeration under section 1.1.
 Although the states concerned tried everything to secure a stricter territorial effect delimitation prior to the signing of the treaties, they achieved only the acknowledgement of the above-mentioned exceptions.
 Point IV of the Assembly Resolution contains this request. See Kraus. ibid. 164.
 Estonia and Latvia did not make a similar statement. They indicated in the course of the negotiations on their admission into the League the provisions included in their constitutions and the legislation their government adopted to safeguard the minorities. See also Footnote 30.
 See Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the Polish Minorities Treaty.
 "German nationals habitually resident in territories recognised as forming part of Poland will acquire Polish nationality ipso facto and will lose their German nationality. German nationals, however, or their descendants who became resident in these territories after January 1, 1908, will not acquire Polish nationality without a special authorisation from the Polish State." See the complete French text of the Treaty in: Jahrbuch des Völkerrechts VIII, 87-249.
 I shall specify the rules regulating the minority protection procedure during the discussion on procedural minority law.
 As I have indicated, the Polish Minorities Treaty served as a model for the drafting of the other minorities treaties, peace treaties, and declarations.
 See, however, Footnote 42.
 The peace treaties signed with Austria (Article 64), Bulgaria (Article 51), and Hungary (Article 56) do not contain provisions on the right to opt, which is included in Article 3 of the Polish Minorities Treaty, since no new territories were annexed to these countries. However, these treaties made it possible for persons living in the territories disannexed from Austria (Articles 78 and 80), Bulgaria (Article 40 Paragraphs. 1-4 and Article 45), and Hungary (Articles 63 and 64) to exercise their right to opt under certain conditions.
 Buza. ibid. 85.
 The Czechoslovakian Minorities Treaty did not limit the obligation of the government to elementary schools, but extended it to public education in general, that is, to higher educational institutions as well. See Article 9 Paragraph 1 of the Treaty. Halmosy. ibid. 92.
 This equitable share ("une part équitable") is not specified in any of the treaties. The drafters presumably meant proportional share, although then the question arises what the basis of comparison is: the minority population, the number and type of institutions maintained, or the number of those who used them? The Austrian counterproposal for the peace treaty, instead of allocating sums from the public funds to minority education and other purposes, intended to grant the minorities the right to impose taxes. See Balogh. ibid. 165-166.
 The flexible notion of "proportion considérable" gave rise to numerous debates both in the practice of the states and in professional literature on international law as well. The treaties did not stipulate how to interpret this, so the countries had carte blanche in this respect. See Buza. ibid. 82-83, and Balogh. ibid. 164.
 For example, the Minorities Treaty signed with the Serb-Croatian-Slovenian State contained a similar territorial restriction. According to its Article 9 Paragraph 3, the provision applied only to territories acquired after January 1913. See e.g. Baranyai, Zoltán: A kisebbségi jogok védelmének kézikönyve [Manual of the Protection of Minority Rights]. 74-75.
 Buza. ibid. 88.
 A similar provision is included only in the Lithuanian declaration (Article 7), and the German-Polish Convention on Upper Silesia (Article 70). Kraus. ibid. 126., 130.
 This was modelled on Article 12 of the Polish Minorities Treaty. The other minorities treaties contain the very same prov