3 Convention") on May 28, 1991. On that same day, the State recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. 6. On May 26, 1998, Trinidad and Tobago denounced the Convention and the denunciation became effective one year later, as of May 26, 1999, pursuant to Article 78 of the Convention. According to Article 78 of the Convention, a denunciation will not release the denouncing State from its obligations under the Convention with respect to acts of that State occurring prior to the effective date of the denunciation that may constitute a violation of the Convention. 7. Moreover, in the Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin and others Case3, the Court held in its judgments on preliminary objections 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. 8. Notwithstanding the fact that the Inter-American Court is fully competent to hear the present Case, the State did not participate in the proceedings before this Tribunal (infra paras. 24, 30, 34 and 39). Nevertheless, the Court, as is the case with any other international organ with jurisdictional functions, has the inherent authority to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence).4 9. In interpreting the American Convention in accordance with the general rules of treaty interpretation enshrined in Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, bearing in mind the object and purpose of the American Convention, this Tribunal, in the exercise of the authority conferred on it by Article 62(3) of the American Convention, must act in a manner that preserves the integrity of the provisions of Article 62(1) of the Convention. It would be unacceptable to subordinate these provisions to restrictions that would render inoperative the Court’s jurisdictional role, and consequently, the human rights protection system established in the Convention.5 10. Furthermore, the Court considers relevant to recall a recent case law with respect to the its ratione temporis competence6: 3 Cf. Hilaire Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 80, para. 98; Benjamin et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 81, para. 89; and Constantine et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 82, para. 89. 4 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004, Series C No. 118, para. 63; Case of Alfonso Martín-del Campo-Dodd. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 2004, Series C No. 113, para. 69; and Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003, Series C No. 104, para. 68. 5 Cf. Hilaire Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 3, paras. 82 and 84; Benjamin et al. Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 3, paras. 73 to 75; and Constantine et al. Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 3, paras. 73 to75. 6 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 4, paras. 66 and 67.