My own view, heretofore expressed, is that in no case could the supposedly notorious facts create a presumption because there would always be a difference of opinion as to those very facts themselves. But proceeding on the other theory, and looking only at the language, the presumptions are important; here it is necessary to refer to only one of them. {68} This presumption arises when a State has "disregarded" a decision by the Council, by the Court or by the Arbitrators following the Court, that a dispute arises out of a domestic question _and has also not submitted_[6] the question to the Council or the Assembly for discussion, under Article 11 of the Covenant. Before the Japanese amendment, the text was that the presumption arose when a State "disregarded" such a decision to the effect that the dispute arose out of a domestic question. Now let us see what the difference between the two is, that is to say, the difference between the text _prior_ to the Japanese amendment and the text _with_ the Japanese amendment. In either case the decision on the question of law has gone against the complaining State. The proper tribunal has decided that the question is a domestic question and that decision in either case is and remains conclusive. In either case, the State "disregarding" that decision and going to war is an aggressor. We may see that this is so by supposing that the entire original text as well as the text of this portion of the Japanese amendment was stricken out.[7] Then, clearly, the State would be an aggressor under Article 2 of the Protocol and under the first paragraph of Article 10; and there is nothing either in the original text that we are considering or in the Japanese addition thereto which changes that conclusion.[8] The difference then between the original text and the text with the amendment is this: in the original text, a complaining State disregarding such a binding decision as to the domestic character of the question was _presumed_ an aggressor if it went {69} to war _either before or after_ the consideration of the matter by the Council or the Assembly under Article 11 of the Covenant. Under the text as amended, such a State is _presumed_ to be an aggressor only if it resorts to war _before_ such consideration under that Article 11. In other words, the difference between the original and amended texts would arise only in the following circumstances: State A brings a dispute against State B before a tribunal (Council, Committee of Arbitrators, etc.). The tribunal renders a binding decision that the dispute arises out of a domestic question. The complaining State, bound by that decision, then brings the matter before the Council or the Assembly under Article 11 of the Covenant and no adjustment results; thereupon the complaining State resorts to war.