9 mechanism provided for in Article 62(1) of the Convention. That mechanism cannot be subordinated to any restrictions that the respondent State might add to the terms of its recognition of the Court’s binding jurisdiction, as that would adversely affect the efficacy of the mechanism and could obstruct its future development. 36. Acceptance of the Court’s binding jurisdiction is an ironclad clause 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 internal reasons. 37. The States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its provisions and its effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (in other words, the clauses on the protected rights), but also to the procedural provisions, such as the one concerning recognition of the Tribunal’s contentious jurisdiction.1 That clause, essential to the efficacy of the mechanism of international protection, must be interpreted and applied in such a way that the guarantee that it establishes is truly practical and effective, given the special nature of human rights treaties (cf. infra 42 to 45) and their collective enforcement. 38. Article 31(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (hereinafter “the Vienna Convention”) provides that: A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. […] 39. Article 62(1) of the American Convention stipulates 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 any special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention.” There is no provision in the Convention that expressly permits the States Parties to withdraw their declaration of recognition of the Court’s binding jurisdiction. Nor does the instrument in which Peru recognizes the Court’s jurisdiction, dated January 21, 1981, allow for that possibility. 40. An interpretation of the Convention done “in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose” leads this Court to the view that a State Party to the American Convention can only release itself of its obligations under the Convention by following the provisions that the treaty itself stipulates. In the instant case, under the Convention, the only avenue the State has to disengage itself from the Court’s binding contentious jurisdiction is to denounce the Convention as a whole (cf. infra 46, 50); if this happens, then the denunciation will only have effect if done in accordance with Article 78, which requires one year’s advance notice. 1. European Commission of Human Rights, Applications No. 15299/89, 15300/89 and 15318/89, Chrysostomos et al. v. Turkey (1991), Decisions and Reports, Strasbourg, C. E., [1991] vol. 68, pp. 216253.