22 given the particular nature and the object and purpose of the American Convention. The European Court of Human Rights ruled similarly in its judgment on preliminary objections in the Loizidou v. Turkey case (1995), in connection with optional recognition of the European Court’s binding jurisdiction (Article 46 of the European Convention, before Protocol XI to the European Convention entered into force on 01.11.1998). The European Court held that the European Convention was a law-making treaty13. 89) For the foregoing reasons, the Court considers that Trinidad and Tobago cannot prevail in the limitations 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. Consequently, the Court considers that it must dismiss the second and third arguments in the preliminary objection presented by Trinidad and Tobago insofar as they refer to the Court’s jurisdiction. VIII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 90) Now therefore, THE COURT DECIDES Unanimously, 1. To dismiss the preliminary objection presented by the State in its totality. 2. To continue to examine and process the instant case. 3. To commission its President, at the appropriate time, to convene the State and the Inter-American Commission to a public hearing on the merits of the case, to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 4. To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of this judgment. Judges Cançado Trindade, Salgado-Pesantes, and García-Ramírez informed the Court of their Individual Opinions, which are attached to this Judgment. Done in Spanish and English, the Spanish version being the authentic, in San José, Costa Rica, on September 1, 2001. Antônio A. Cançado Trindade President 13 Cf. Constitutional Court Case. Competence. Supra note 7, para. 46 and Ivcher Bronstein Case. Competence. Supra note 7, para. 47.