20 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. 78) 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 the Court. 79) 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. 80) 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 stipulates9. 81) 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 suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein”. Consequently, it would be meaningless to suppose that a State which had freely decided to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court had decided at the same time to restrict the exercise of its functions as foreseen in the Convention. On the contrary, the mere acceptance by the State leads to the overwhelming presumption that the State will subject itself to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. 82) The effect of the State’s third allegation would be to limit its recognition of the Court’s completely mandatory jurisdiction, with negative consequences for the exercise of the rights protected by the Convention. 83) The declaration formulated by the State of Trinidad and Tobago would allow it to decide in each specific case the extent of its own acceptance of the Court’s 9 Cf. Constitutional Court Case. Competence. Supra note 7, para. 39 and Ivcher Bronstein Case. Competence. Supra note 7, para. 40.