8 - "Recognition of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction is a fundamental clause (cláusula pétrea) to which there can be no limitations except those expressly provided for in Article 62(1) of the American Convention. Because the clause is so fundamental to the operation of the Convention's system of protection, it cannot be at the mercy of limitations not already stipulated but invoked by States Parties for reasons of domestic order" 28. The permissiveness of the insertion of limitations, not foreseen in the human rights treaties, in an instrument of acceptance of an optional clause of compulsory jurisdiction 29, represents a regrettable historical deformation of the original conception of such clause, in my view unacceptable in the field of the international protection of the rights of the human person. 20. It is the duty of an international tribunal of human rights to look after the due application of the human rights treaty at issue in the framework of the domestic law of each State Party, so as to secure the effective protection in the ambit of this latter of the human rights set forth in such treaty 30. Any understanding to the contrary would deprive the international tribunal of human rights of the exercise of the function and of the duty of protection inherent to its jurisdiction, failing to ensure that the human rights treaty has the appropriate effects (effet utile) in the domestic law of each State Party. It is for this reason that I sustain that the optional clause of compulsory jurisdiction of the international tribunal of human rights constitutes a fundamental clause (a cláusula pétrea) of the international protection of the human being, which does not admit any restrictions other than those expressly provided for in the human rights treaty at issue itself. IV. The Precise Formulation of the Optional Clause of Article 62 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Numerus Clausus). 21. The present case of Constantine and Others versus Trinidad and Tobago leads one to a more detailed examination of this specific point. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 62 of the American Convention on Human Rights provide that "A State Party may, upon depositing its instrument of ratification or adherence to this Convention, or at any subsequent time, declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention. Such declaration may be made unconditionally, on the condition of reciprocity, for a specified period, or for specific cases. It shall be presented to the Secretary General of the Organization, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other member States of the Organization and to the Secretary of the Court" 31. 28 . IACtHR, case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Competence), Judgment of 24.09.1999, Series C, n. 55, p. 44, par. 35; CtIADH, case of Ivcher Bronstein (Competence), Judgment of 24.09.1999, Series C, n. 54, p. 39, par. 36. 29 . Exemplified by State practice under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute (supra). 30 . If it were not so, there would be no juridical security in international litigation, with harmful consequences above all in the domain of the international protection of human rights. The intended analogy between the classic inter-State contentieux and the international contentieux of human rights - fundamentally distinct domains - is manifestly inadequate, as in this latter the considerations of a superior order ( international ordre public) have primacy over State voluntarism. The States cannot count on the same latitude of discretionality which they have reserved to themselves in the traditional context of the purely inter-State litigation. 31 . Paragraph 3 of Article 62 of the Convention adds that: -"The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise