15 the judgments of the Court should not have an adverse effect on the existing private rights of the citizens, and deprive them of rights they already enjoyed or impose on them duties to which the were not already subject”. 57) The term could be interpreted to mean that provided that, there is no provision in the Constitution expressly prohibiting the State from accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, the recognition of this jurisdiction is complete and effective. In this sense, the State does not suggest that there are provisions of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago that prohibit the State from accepting the jurisdiction of the Court. 58) In light of the various possible interpretations of the term, it appears so ambiguous that its meaning and scope will depend upon a subjective judgment by the State as to what provisions of the Constitution are “relevant” and in what respect the State’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction must be “consistent” with those provisions, the term, would undermine the Court’s exclusive authority to determine its own jurisdiction, and thereby also render the term invalid. 59) The Commission also indicated that the term in the State’s declaration of acceptance, as it stands and as interpreted by the State, is not authorized by Articles 62 or 75 of the Convention and is incompatible with the Convention’s object and purpose. 60) In conformity with Article 62(2) of the Convention, the “declaration may be made unconditionally, on the condition of reciprocity, for a specific period or for specific cases”. The State’s “reservation” does not invoke the requirement of reciprocity, or temporal limitations, nor does it define specific cases in which the Court will apply its jurisdiction. 61) Secondly, and in conformity with Article 75 of the Convention and, specifically Article 19 of the Vienna Convention, the State’s “reservation” is not permitted, as it is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. The “reservation” is also contrary to general principles of International Law. 62) Finally, the term, as Court to interpret and apply Trinidad and Tobago before and apply Convention rights State’s Constitution. interpreted by the State, would limit the ability of the certain provisions of the Convention in all cases against the Court, as it would permit the Tribunal to interpret only to the extent that such rights are protected in the 63) The Commission considered that the State’s position ignores the fact that it is the responsibility of the Court, not the State, to determine whether the domestic laws of the State, including its Constitution, are consistent with the rights protected by the Convention. It noted that the Inter-American Court has emphasized that the issue of jurisdiction in a particular case is one that only the Court, not States parties, can decide. This clearly extends to the interpretation of the terms included in declarations of acceptance made by various States parties under Article 62 of the Convention. 64) In the abovementioned circumstances, interpreting Article 62 of the American Convention as authorizing the terms of the State’s acceptance would contravene Article 29(a) of the Convention because it would effectively permit the State to violate Articles 4(1), 5(1), and 5(2) of the same with respect to Mr. Hilaire. The