17 72) The State sustained that its “reservation” is in accordance with Article 62 of the American Convention because the latter authorizes the making of reservations in specific cases; and with Article 19 of the Vienna Convention because its “reservation” is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. 73) The State concluded that the requirements of compatibility with the object and purpose refer to the object and purpose of the Convention, and not of the Court; the recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction is optional under the American Convention; the instant case merely addresses the the Court’s jurisdiction, and not the withdrawal of jurisdiction or the denunciation of the Convention; it does not affect the supervisory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Commission; International Law permits reservations, and this is expressly recognized in paragraph 25 of the Advisory Opinion of the Court on The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (OC-2/82); and, the “reservation” of the State does not deprive the Court of the authority to decide whether or not it has jurisdiction. 74) Finally, the State alleged that the “reservation” is clear, consistent with the object and purpose of the Convention, and was made at the moment of the acceptance; therefore, it forms a part of the terms of Trinidad and Tobago’s acceptance of the Treaty. In the event that it is considered unclear or incompatible with the Convention, it is clear that the intention of the State was not to accept the jurisdiction of the Court unconditionally. Oral arguments of the Commission 75) In the public hearing before the Court, the Commission presented various general arguments: first, it indicated that it is the Court that should determine its own jurisdiction; second, that in the determination of the nature its jurisdiction and of the meaning that should be given to any declaration, the Court is guided by the nature of the Convention as a human rights instrument, and strives to give practical effect to the object of the treaty; and, finally, that the Court has developed specific jurisprudence in relation to declarations that purport to restrict its jurisdiction. 76) The Commission also indicated that once the jurisdiction of the Court has been accepted, it cannot be terminated or modified by a unilateral act of the State. It added that the State, in its 1991 declaration, intended to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court in all matters relating to the interpretation of the Convention and did not purport to exclude this jurisdiction. It argued that, alternatively, any reservation purporting to limit the Court’s jurisdiction to interpret the Convention by vague and ambiguous references to domestic laws is not permitted under the Convention or under general principles of International Law. 77) Finally, it indicated that where there has been recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction subject to impermissible restrictions, these restrictions should be severed from the remainder of the instrument of acceptance, and the recognition should remain intact and effective, unless the State withdraws from the Convention system as a whole. Considerations of the Court 78) The Court must settle the matter of the purported “reservation” with which the State of Trinidad and Tobago accompanied its acceptance of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The Court, as with any court or tribunal, has