19 recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement”. 72) As this Tribunal has indicated in its judgments on jurisdiction in the Cases of Constitutional Court and Ivcher Bronstein: The jurisdiction of the Court cannot be contingent upon events extraneous to its own actions. The instruments consenting to the optional clause concerning recognition of the Court’s binding jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) presuppose that the States submitting them accept the Court’s right to settle any controversy relative to its jurisdiction. An objection or any other action taken by the State for the purpose of somehow affecting the Court’s jurisdiction has no consequence whatever, as the Court retains the compétence de la compétence, as it is master of its own jurisdiction7. 73) Interpreting the Convention in accordance with its object and purpose, the Court must act in a manner that preserves the integrity of the mechanism provided for in Article 62(1) of the Convention. It would be unacceptable to subordinate the said mechanism to restrictions that would render the system for the protection of human rights established in the Convention and, as a result, the Court’s jurisdictional role, inoperative. 74) As this Court has indicated in the Cases of Constitutional Court and Ivcher Bronstein [t]he States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its provisions and its effects (effet utile) within their own domestic laws. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human right treaties (in other words, the clauses on the protected rights), but also to the procedural provisions, such as the one concerning recognition of the Tribunal’s contentious jurisdiction. That clause, essential to the efficacy of the mechanism of international protection, must be interpreted and applied in such a way that the guarantee that it establishes is truly practical and effective, given the special nature of human rights treaties [...] and their collective enforcement8. 75) Article 31(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention provides that [a] treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. 76) The Court’s duty, at this stage, is to decide, as the present case requires, whether Trinidad and Tobago’s “reservation” has the effect of excluding the Court’s jurisdiction in the manner alleged by the State. 77) As previously noted, the purported “reservation” contains two parts. The first intends to limit the recognition of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction in the sense that said recognition is only valid to the extent that it is “consistent with the relevant sections” of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. These expressions can lead to numerous interpretations. Nonetheless, it is clear to the Court that they cannot be given a scope that would impede this Tribunal’s ability to judge whether 7 Constitutional Court Case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 33 and Ivcher Bronstein Case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 34. 8 Cf. Constitutional Court Case. Competence. Supra note 7, para. 36 and Ivcher Bronstein Case. Competence. Supra note 7, para. 37.