14 question, even when undertaken by means of a unilateral declaration, is binding for the State. The latter is thenceforth “legally required to follow a course of conduct consistent with its declaration”, and the other States Parties are authorized to demand that that obligation be honored.7 52. Despite the fact that it is optional, the declaration of recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of an international tribunal, once made, does not give the State the authority to change its content and scope at will at some later date: “… The right of immediate termination of declarations with indefinite duration is far from established. It appears from the requirements of good faith that they should be treated, by analogy, according to the law of treaties, which requires a reasonable time for withdrawal from or termination of treaties that contain no provision regarding the duration of their validity.”8 Thus, in order for an optional clause to be unilaterally terminated, the pertinent rules of the law of treaties must be applied. Those rules clearly preclude any possibility of a termination or “release” with “immediate effect”. 53. For the foregoing reasons, the Court considers inadmissible Peru’s purported withdrawal of the declaration recognizing the contentious jurisdiction of the Court effective immediately, as well as any consequences said withdrawal was intended to have, among them the return of the application, which is irrelevant. 54. Given the foregoing, the Court considers that it must continue to adjudicate the Constitutional Court case in accordance with Article 27 of its Rules of Procedure. VI OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 55. Now therefore, THE COURT RESOLVES Unanimously 1. 2. To declare that: a. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is competent to take up the present case; b. The State’s purported withdrawal of the declaration recognizing the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is inadmissible. To continue to examine and adjudicate the instant case. 7. Nuclear Tests case (Australia vs. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, ICJ Reports 1974, p 268, paragraph 46; Nuclear Tests case (New Zealand vs. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, ICJ Reports 1974, pp. 473 and 267, paragraphs 49 and 43, respectively. 8. Cf. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 26 November 1984, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 420, para. 63 and cf. p. 418, paragraphs 59 and 60.