17 61) Finally, the term, as interpreted by the State, would limit the ability of the Court to interpret and apply certain provisions of the Convention in all cases against Trinidad and Tobago before the Court, as it would permit the Tribunal to interpret and apply Convention rights only to the extent that such rights are protected in the State’s Constitution. 62) The Commission considered that the State’s position ignores the fact that it is the responsibility of the Court, not the State, to determine whether the domestic laws of the State, including its Constitution, are consistent with the rights protected by the Convention. It noted that the Inter-American Court has emphasized that the issue of jurisdiction in a particular case is one that only the Court, not States parties, can decide. This clearly extends to the interpretation of the terms included in declarations of acceptance made by various States parties under Article 62 of the Convention. 63) In the abovementioned circumstances, interpreting Article 62 of the American Convention as authorizing the terms of the State’s acceptance would contravene Article 29(a) of the Convention because it would effectively permit the State to violate the Convention with respect to the alleged victims in this case. The State has interpreted its declaration in a manner that prohibits the Court from considering the specific aspects of the “mandatory death penalty”. 64) The Commission also contended that the impugned term could be severed from the State’s acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, preserving the validity and effectiveness of the said instrument. 65) The Convention protects the human rights of individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the States parties, so the State’s “reservation” should be interpreted in a manner that strengthens rather than weakens this regime, and, as such, increases, not diminishes, the protection of human rights in the entire hemisphere. 66) Severing the impugned term from the State’s declaration of acceptance, instead of annulling the declaration in toto, serves to guarantee the fundamental human rights of the alleged victims and those of individuals in similar situations who would not otherwise have effective domestic remedies of protection. 67) Trinidad and Tobago was the only State Party at its moment of accession to have attached conditions of this nature to its acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. In contrast, the majority of States had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court unconditionally. It is a principle of International Law and a “fundamental precept underlying the American Convention”, that States cannot invoke their internal law as a justification for not complying with a treaty. Nonetheless, this is what the State purports to do with its interpretation of the impugned term. 68) The Inter-American Commission argued that the Court could follow the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the European Court”) in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey, which declared that ratione loci restrictions could be severed from the declaration of acceptance, leaving intact the acceptance of the optional clauses. Considerations of the Court 69) The Court must settle the matter of the purported “reservation” with which the State of Trinidad and Tobago accompanied its acceptance of the contentious