14 access to an international body,” Trinidad and Tobago “made that process for the time being part of the domestic criminal justice system and thereby temporarily at least extended the scope of the due process clause in the Constitution.” 54 The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council continued that, with its denouncement of the American Convention, Trinidad and Tobago “is entitled to curtail such rights of access or prescribe conditions for their exercise for the future. But (…) section 4(a) of the Constitution prevents the government from doing so retrospectively so as to affect existing applications.” 55 39. In other words, the rights protected in the American Convention, whose violation was established in the present Judgment on the merits and reparations in the Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, are not affected in any way by Trinidad and Tobago’s denouncement of the American Convention. From the perspective of an international human rights tribunal such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this is true not only by virtue of what the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the argument of the authority) correctly recognized, but rather can also be inferred from the provisions of the American Convention and from the general principles of international law (the authority for the argument). 40. In any case, the prior question concerning the jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court was definitively resolved by the Judgments on the preliminary objections of September 1, 2001 in the Hilaire, Constantine et al. and Benjamin et al. cases (which were then joined). In those Judgments, the Court, making use of the abilities inherent to it (due to the imperative of juridical certainty), determined the scope of its own jurisdiction, and, preserving the integrity of the protection mechanisms of the American Convention, retained jurisdiction over the present Case. 56 The respondent State, therefore, finds itself bound (pact sunt servanda) by the holdings of the present Judgment on the merits and reparations. 41. The rule of pacta sunt servanda, enshrined in the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties of 1969 (Article 26 and Preamble), likewise cannot be diminished by the fact that Trinidad and Tobago has not ratified this Convention, as the Convention merely articulated existing norms of international customary law. The rule of pacta sunt servanda, which incorporates the concept of good faith (bona fides) 57 effectively transcends the law of treaties, being characterized by doctrine, whether as a norm of customary law 58 or as a general principle of international law. 59 54 Privy Council Office/Judicial Committee, Privy Council Appeal No. 60 of 1998- D.R. Thomas and H. Hilaire (Trinidad and Tobago), Decision of January 27, 1999, p.12. 55 Ibid. pp. 12-13. 56 On the basis of the applicable provisions of the American Convention (Articles 62(3) and 78(2)). 57 M. Lachs, “Some Thoughts on the Role of Good Faith in International Law,” in Declarations on Principles, a Quest for Universal Peace- Liber Amicorum Discipulorumque B.V.A. Roling, Leyden, Sijthoff, 1977, pp. 47-55, M.K. Yassen, “L’Interprétation des traits d’après de la Convention de Vienne sur le Droit des Traités,” 151 Recueil des Cours de l’Académiede Droit International de La Haye (1976) p.20; Clive Parry, “Derecho de los Tratados,” in Manual de Derecho Público (ed. M. Sorensen), 5th edition, Mexico, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1994, pp. 229 and 200-201. 58 See, e.g., B. Conforti, Derecho Internacional, Buenos Aires, Zavalía Ed., 1995, p. 67; also H. Mosler, “The International Society as a Legal Community,” 140 Recueil des Cours de l’Académiede Droit International de La Haye (1974) pp. 115-116 – Rules (such as the pacta sunt servanda) enshrined in treaties can very well be evidence of international customary law; R.R. Baxter, “Treaties and Custom,” 129 Recueil des Cours de l’Académiede Droit International de La Haye (1970) pp.31, 43, 57 and 102-103.