15 b) the treaty provides, that only specified reservations, which do not include the reservation in question, may be made; or c) in cases not falling under subparagraphs (a) and (b), the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. 44) The State also mentioned that in its Advisory Opinion on The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (OC-2/82), the Court had stated that the reference in Article 75 to the Vienna Convention was intended to be a reference to paragraph (c) of Article 19 of the Vienna Convention and “makes sense only if it is understood as an express authorization designed to enable States to make whatever reservations they deem appropriate, provided the reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. As such they can be said to be governed by Article 20(1) of the Vienna Convention and, consequently, do not require acceptance by any other State party” 6. 45) The State argued that its “reservation” was made relative to its acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction and is limited to Article 62 of the American Convention. According to Trinidad and Tobago, Article 62 of the Convention is an optional clause that States can freely “accept or reject”. Those States that accept and so declare are expressly authorized to do so subject to conditions. The Convention permits restrictions at the moment of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 62, which does not affect the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and liberties recognized in the Convention. Consequently, given that the “reservation” does not deny the exercise of any of the rights provided for in the Convention, it can be considered compatible with the object and purpose of the same. 46) Trinidad and Tobago contended that, in accordance with universally recognized principles of International Law, the exercise of the jurisdiction by an international court with respect to a State is not a right but a privilege only exercisable with the express consent of the State. Article 62 of the Convention reflects this position. 47) The State added that the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago is and was, at the moment of ratification of the Convention, compatible with the Convention. It argued that its “reservation” cannot be interpreted as contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention because the “reservation” is only related to the optional procedure contained in Article 62 of the Convention, which in no way affects the substantive rights guaranteed in the Convention. The “reservation,” as presented, it argued, does not restrict the obligations assumed by the State under the Convention in relation to individuals within its jurisdiction. 48) Trinidad and Tobago also maintained that, if the Court declares the State’s Article 62 “reservation” incompatible with the object and purpose of the American Convention, the effect of such a determination would be to render the State’s declaration accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction null and void ab initio. 6 The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75), Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 35. To this respect, Article 20 of the Vienna Convention “Acceptance of and objection to reservations” establishes the following in paragraph 1: 1. A reservation expressly authorized by a treaty does not require any subsequent acceptance by the other contracting States unless the treaty so provides.