Before coming to the procedure before the Council, I now enumerate those cases in which, because of the existence of certain facts, a State is "presumed" to be an aggressor; any such presumption can be upset only by the _unanimous_ decision of the Council to the contrary. These cases are as follows: 1. If hostilities have broken out and a State has refused to submit the dispute to the procedure for pacific settlement contemplated by the Protocol. 2. If hostilities have broken out and a State has refused to comply with a decision, award, etc. 3. If hostilities have broken out and a State has disregarded a determination that the matter in dispute is a domestic matter _and_ has not submitted the question for discussion by the Council or Assembly under Article 11 of the Covenant. 4. If hostilities have broken out and a State has violated the provisional measures against mobilization, etc., contemplated by Article 7 of the Protocol (and which will be mentioned later). Certainly the theory of the first three of the four instances above mentioned is the theory stated by Herriot in his speech before the Assembly that the State that refuses arbitration is an aggressor.[8] In other words, law is substituted for force. Now it is to be observed that in each of the four foregoing {58} cases _hostilities must have broken out_ and in each one of them at least one additional fact must have occurred. In other words, given certain facts, there is a presumption as to the aggressor; but who is to say, how it is to be determined, whether or not at any particular moment these facts exist? It is not sufficient to say that the facts will be open and notorious, for they might not be. Indeed, if we look critically at each one of what I may call the required facts, we find that doubt might arise. Take the primary fact, which is always required for any presumption to arise; this fact is that hostilities shall have broken out. One's first impression might be that this could never be a matter of doubt; but this is not so. Take the case of Corfu, for example. Italian officers had been murdered in Greece by somebody; various individuals had been killed at Corfu by a bombardment of the Italian fleet. Had or had not hostilities broken out within the meaning of Article 10 of the Protocol? Surely the point is at least debatable.