18 declarations of acceptance made by various States parties under Article 62 of the Convention. 63) 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 the Convention with respect to the alleged victims in this case. The State has interpreted its declaration in a manner that prohibits the Court from considering the specific aspects of the “mandatory death penalty”. 64) The Commission also contended that the impugned term could be severed from the State’s acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, preserving the validity and effectiveness of the said instrument. 65) The Convention protects the human rights of individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the States parties, so the State’s “reservation” should be interpreted in a manner that strengthens rather than weakens this regime, and, as such, increases, not diminishes, the protection of human rights in the entire hemisphere. 66) Severing the impugned term from the State’s declaration of acceptance, instead of annulling the declaration in toto, serves to guarantee the fundamental human rights of the alleged victims and those of individuals in similar situations who would not otherwise have effective domestic remedies of protection. 67) Trinidad and Tobago noted that it is a principle of international law and a “fundamental precept of the American Convention”, that States cannot invoke their Internal Law as a justification for not complying with a treaty. Nonetheless, this is what the State purports to do with its interpretation of the impugned term. 68) The Inter-American Commission argued that the Court could follow the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the European Court”) in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey, which declared that ratione loci restrictions could be severed from the declaration of acceptance, leaving intact the acceptance of the optional clauses. Considerations of the Court 69) The Court must settle the matter of the purported “reservation” with which the State of Trinidad and Tobago accompanied its acceptance of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The Court, as with any court or tribunal, has the inherent authority to determine the scope of its own competence. (compétence de la competence/Kompetenz-Kompetez). 70) The Court must give an interpretation to the declaration of the State, as a whole, that is in accordance with the canons and practice of International Law in general, and with International Human Rights Law specifically, and which awards the greatest degree of protection to the human beings under its guardianship. 71) The Court cannot abdicate this prerogative, as it is a duty that the American Convention imposes upon it, requiring it to exercise its functions in accordance with Article 62(3) thereof. That provision reads that “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case