16 reading of the term makes it difficult to determine the restrictions that the State has purported to establish under Article 62 to its assumed obligations under the Convention. 54) The term can also be interpreted in various ways. For example, it could be interpreted to mean that the Court is precluded from hearing and deciding a case related to allegations of violations of a Convention right if the same right is not protected under the State’s Constitution. Alternatively, it could be interpreted to mean that while the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter, the Court’s judgment must be consistent with certain unstipulated sections of Trinidad and Tobago’s Constitution. 55) The Commission noted that the State only relies upon the first part of the declaration in concluding that the Court has no jurisdiction. It pointed out that the State makes no reference to the portion of the declaration, which reads “and provided that any judgment of the Court does not infringe, create, or abolish any existing rights or duties of any private citizen”, and considered that it is apparent that the State specifically acknowledges in this second part of the declaration that the Court has competence to give judgments in cases against Trinidad and Tobago. It may therefore be that, taking the first and second parts of the declaration together, the State was concerned that the giving effect in Trinidad and Tobago to the judgments of the Court should not have an adverse effect on the existing private rights of the citizens, and deprive them of rights they already enjoyed or impose on them duties to which they were not already subject. 56) The term could be interpreted to mean that, provided that there is no provision in the Constitution expressly prohibiting the State from accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, the recognition of this jurisdiction is complete and effective. In this sense, the State does not suggest that there are provisions of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago that prohibit the State from accepting the jurisdiction of the Court. 57) In light of the various possible interpretations of the term, it appears so ambiguous that its meaning and scope will depend upon a subjective judgment by the State as to what provisions of the Constitution are “relevant” and in what respect the State’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction must be “consistent” with those provisions, the term, would undermine the Court’s exclusive authority to determine its own jurisdiction, and thereby also render the term invalid. 58) The Commission also indicated that the term in the State’s declaration of acceptance is not authorized by Articles 62 or 75 of the Convention and is incompatible with the Convention’s object and purpose. 59) In conformity with Article 62(2) of the Convention, the “declaration may be made unconditionally, on the condition of reciprocity, for a specific period or for specific cases”. The State’s “reservation” does not invoke the requirement of reciprocity, or temporal limitations, nor does it define specific cases in which the Court will apply its jurisdiction. 60) Secondly, and in conformity with Article 75 of the Convention and, specifically Article 19 of the Vienna Convention, the State’s “reservation” is not permitted, as it is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. The “reservation” is also contrary to general principles of International Law.