2 for so-called “obligations of individuals” deriving from acts or measures which, in the Court’s opinion, violate the Convention. The decisions of the Inter-American Court would also have repercussions on “the rights of individuals” if they recognized certain juridical consequences in their favor, owing to the violations that had been committed: for example, the right to reparations. Moreover, it is not clear what is meant by indicating that the judgments of the Court may not establish “existing right or obligations” of certain individuals. 7. In brief, based on the foregoing – which expands the reasoning on which the Court’s judgments in the cases referred to in this opinion are based – it is not possible to recognize the validity of the declaration formulated by the State in the ratification instrument of May 28, 1991, and use it as grounds for the preliminary objection that has been raised. 8. In the judgments delivered in these three cases, the Inter-American Court has referred exclusively to the objection filed by Trinidad and Tobago and, consequently, has examined the characteristics of the declaration on which the State seeks to base itself, in the context of these cases. The issue of reservations and declarations that limit the jurisdictional exercise of the Court in general, and which are usually presented in different terms, is a separate matter. This does not negate the desirability of eliminating reservations and conditions that ultimately signify restrictions of a greater or lesser extent to the full exercise of such rights, in honor of the universality of human rights, a conviction that is common to the States that have contributed to constructing the corresponding inter-American system. Sergio García-Ramírez Judge Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretary