12 contained all the facts that might be relevant for the purposes of a legal determination. 42) For this reason, and in the light of the guarantees contained in the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as the Rules of Procedure and Statutes governing the organs of the Inter-American system, the Court is of the opinion that the proper interpretation is that, when there are additional arguments, with respect to rights, on the same essential facts as are pleaded in the petitioner’s original complaint, such a pleading cannot be dismissed for the mere failure to invoke a specific article of the Convention. Article 32(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, in effect when the complaint was lodged before it, expressly allows for the possibility that “no specific reference [need be] made to the article(s) alleged to have been violated” in order for a complaint to be processed before it. Therefore, the Court dismisses the first argument of the State’s preliminary objection regarding the inadmissibility of the complaint. B. LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT Written arguments of the State 43) 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. 44) 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; 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. 45) 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