19 [a] treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. 85) The Court’s duty, at this stage, is to decide, as the present case requires, whether Trinidad and Tobago’s “reservation” has the effect of excluding the Court’s jurisdiction in the manner alleged by the State. 86) As previously noted, the purported “reservation” contains two parts. The first intends to limit the recognition of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction in the sense that said recognition is only valid to the extent that it is “consistent with the relevant sections” of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. These expressions can lead to numerous interpretations. Nonetheless, it is clear to the Court that they cannot be given a scope that would impede this Tribunal’s ability to judge whether the State had or had not violated a provision of the Convention. The second part of the purported restriction relates to the State’s “recognition” of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction so that its judgments do not “infringe, create or abolish any existing rights or duties of any private citizen” (sic). Again, though the precise meaning of this condition is unclear, without a doubt it cannot be utilized with the purpose of suppressing the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and decide an application related to an alleged violation of the State’s conventional obligations. 87) In this respect, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 62 of the American Convention establish: 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 binding, 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 there to the other states of the Organization and to the Secretary of this Court. 88) The Court observes that the instrument of acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction on the part of Trinidad and Tobago is not consistent with the hypothesis stipulated in Article 62(2) of the American Convention. It is general in scope, which completely subordinates the application of the American Convention to the internal legislation of Trinidad and Tobago as decided by its courts. This implies that the instrument of acceptance is manifestly incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. As a result, the said article does not contain a provision that allows Trinidad and Tobago to formulate the “restriction” it made. 89) An interpretation of the American Convention done “in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose” leads this Court to the view that a State party to the Convention can only release itself of its obligations under the Convention by following the provisions that the treaty itself stipulates 10. 90) Article 29(a) of the American Convention stipulates that no provision of the Convention shall be interpreted as “permitting any State Party, group, or person to 10 Cf. Constitutional Court Case. Competence. Supra note 8, para. 39 and Ivcher Bronstein Case. Competence. Supra note 8, para. 40.