21 96) That finding is consistent with the case law of other international jurisdictional bodies 13. 97) As this Court has stated in the cases of Constitutional Court and Ivcher Bronstein [n]o analogy can be drawn between the State practice detailed under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and acceptance of the optional clause concerning recognition of the binding jurisdiction of this Court, given the particular nature and the object and purpose of the American Convention. The European Court of Human Rights ruled similarly in its judgment on preliminary objections in the Loizidou v. Turkey case (1995), in connection with optional recognition of the European Court’s binding jurisdiction (Article 46 of the European Convention, before Protocol XI to the European Convention entered into force on 01.11.1998). The European Court held that the European Convention was a law-making treaty 14. 98) For the foregoing reasons, the Court considers that Trinidad and Tobago cannot prevail in the limitation included in its instrument of acceptance of the optional clause of the mandatory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in virtue of what has been established in Article 62 of the American Convention, because this limitation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. Consequently, the Court considers that it must dismiss the second and third arguments in the preliminary objection submitted by the State insofar as they refer to the Court’s jurisdiction. VIII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 99) Now therefore, THE COURT DECIDES Unanimously, 1. To dismiss the preliminary objection presented by the State in its totality. 2. To continue to examine and process the instant case. 3. To commission its President, at the appropriate time, to convene the State and the Inter-American Commission to a public hearing on the merits of the case, to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 13 Cf. See International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment for the Crime of Genocide (1951); European Commission of Human Rights, Decision as to the Admissibility of Application No. 788/60, Austria vs. Italy case, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, The Hague, M. Nijhoff, 1961; Eur. Court HR, Ireland vs. United Kingdom case, Judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A No. 25; Eur. Court H.R., Soering Case, decision of 26 January 1989, Series A No. 161; Eur. Court of H.R., Case of Loizidou vs. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A Nº 310. 14 Cf. Constitutional Court Case. Competence. Supra note 8, para. 46 and Ivcher Bronstein Case. Competence. Supra note 8, para. 47.