14 of transmission of the Commission’s Article 50 Report. Moreover, the Court has determined in its jurisprudence that Article 51 of the Convention requires a matter to be filed before the Court within the three-month period under Article 51, but has never interpreted said article in a manner that requires the Court to determine its jurisdiction over the case within this same three-month period. 39) Given the urgency of the issues raised in the Court, particularly the legitimacy of the pending requested that the State should not be permitted to over the case based upon an erroneous interpretation Article 51 of the Convention. present application before the executions, the Commission defeat the Court’s jurisdiction of the procedural period under Considerations of the Court 40) The Court finds it appropriate to clarify, in light of the State’s arguments, that what took place on April 14, 2000 was a notification of the application (supra 20). Consequently, it should not be interpreted that the three-month time period stipulated in Article 51(1) of the Convention applies to the Court’s actions in the exercise of its own jurisdiction, as this emanates from the American Convention. Article 51(1) only refers to a time limit for the submission of the application to the Court, and does not directly relate to the Court’s actions relative to the determination of its jurisdiction. When the text of Article 51(1) says “its jurisdiction accepted”, this refers to the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction on the part of the State, and not the Court’s actions in the exercise of its own jurisdiction. 41) For the foregoing considerations, the Court dismisses the first argument of the State’s preliminary objection, in which it refers to the timeliness of the application and the “acceptance of jurisdiction” on the part of the Court. B. LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT Arguments of the State 42) As previously stated by Trinidad and Tobago, the State deposited its instrument of adherence of the Convention on May 28, 1991, dated April 3, 1991, recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, but subjected this recognition to a “reservation”. The State’s “reservation” reads that [a]s regards Article 62 of the Convention, the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, recognizes the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as stated in the said article, only to such extent that recognition is consistent with the relevant sections of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago; and provided that Judgment of the Court does not infringe, create or abolish any existing rights or duties of any private citizen. 43) The State indicated that Article 75 of the Convention declares that it can only be subject to reservations in conformity with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties signed on May 23, 1969 (hereinafter “the Vienna Convention”). In this respect, Article 19 of the same provides [a] State may, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, formulate a reservation unless: a) the reservation is prohibited by the treaty;