3 9. It would be unacceptable to subordinate the implementation of the treatybased protection mechanism to restrictions filed by the States Parties in their instruments recognizing the optional clause on compulsory jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court (Article 62 of the American Convention) that were not expressly authorized by the American Convention. This would not only immediately affect the effectiveness of the implementation of the treaty-based protection mechanism, but would also have a fatal effect on its future development possibilities. In both cases, the Inter-American Court had the opportunity of underscoring its obligation to preserve the integrity of the treaty-based regional system for the protection of human rights as a whole. 3 10. In the acknowledged absence of “implicit” limitations to the exercise of the rights embodied in human rights treaties, the constant limitations to these protection treaties must be interpreted restrictively. The optional clause on compulsory jurisdiction is not an exception to this: it does not allow limitations, other than those expressly included in those treaties and, given its capital importance, it cannot be at the mercy of limitations that are not established in them and that are invoked by the States Parties owing to reasons or vicissitudes of a domestic nature. 4 III. The specific formulation of the optional clause of Article 62 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Numerus Clausus): New reflections 11. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 62 of the American Convention on Human Rights establish that: “1. 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 compulsory, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention. 2. Such declaration may be made unconditionally, on the condition of reciprocity, for a specified period, or for specific cases. It shall be presented to the Secretary General of the Organization, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other member states of the Organization and to the Secretary of the Court." 5 12. These are the terms and conditions for the recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court by a State Party to the Convention. These terms and conditions of recognition are expressly stipulated in Article 62, and their formulation is not merely illustrative, but clearly specific. No State is obliged to accept an optional clause, as the name itself indicates; however, if it decides to do 3 . Likewise, the European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment on preliminary objections (of March 23, 1995) in Loizidou versus Turquia, noted that, in light of the letter and spirit of the European Convention, it is not possible to infer the possibility of restrictions to the optional clause when recognizing the contentious jurisdiction of the European Court (former Article 46 of the European Court, prior to Protocol No. 11); also, contrary to the permissive State practice under Article 36 of the ICJ Statute, under the European Convention, State practice was exactly a contrario sensu, accepting the said clause without restrictions. 4 . Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru (Preliminary objections), Judgment of September 4, 1998, Series C, No. 41, Concurring opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, paras. 36 and 38. 5 . Paragraph 3 of Article 62 of the Convention adds that: - "The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement."