SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. I vote in favour of the adoption by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of the present Judgment on Preliminary Objections in the case of Constantine and Others versus Trinidad and Tobago, which, in my view, represents a significant contribution of the International Law of Human Rights to the evolution of a specific aspect of contemporary International Law, namely, that pertaining to the international compulsory jurisdiction (based on the acceptance of the optional clause of compulsory jurisdiction) of an international tribunal of human rights. Given the transcendental importance of this matter, I feel obliged to present, as the juridical foundation of my position on the matter, the thoughts that I allow myself to develop in this Separate Opinion, concerning the following points: first, the prior question of the compétence de la compétence (Kompetenz Kompetenz) of the Inter-American Court; second, the origin and the evolution of the institute of the optional clause of compulsory jurisdiction, and the examination of the international practice on the matter; third, an evaluation lex lata of the international compulsory jurisdiction; fourth, the legal effect of the precise formulation of the optional clause in Article 62 of the American Convention on Human Rights (numerus clausus); and fourth, my considerations de lege ferenda on the international compulsory jurisdiction in the framework of the American Convention. I. The Prior Question: The Compétence de la Compétence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 2. The starting-point of my personal reading of the meaning and extent of the present Judgment of the Inter-American Court in the case of Constantine and Others versus Trinidad and Tobago lies in the prior question of the inherent faculty of the Court to determine the extent of its own competence. In fact, the instruments of acceptance of the optional clause of compulsory jurisdiction of international tribunals presuppose the admission, on the part of the States which present them, of the competence of the international tribunal at issue to resolve any controversy pertaining to its own jurisdiction, - this being a basic principle of international procedural law 1. That is a competence which is inherent to every international tribunal, which fulfils an imperative of juridical security, as the determination of the extent of its own jurisdiction cannot be in the hands of the States Parties2. 3. A reservation or objection or any other act interposed by the State aiming at safeguarding to itself the last word in relation to any aspect of the competence of the Court is not only innocuous, but also invalid, as in any circumstances the Court retains the compétence de la compétence. This is what is inferred from the Judgments on Preliminary Objections which the Court has just adopted in the cases of Constantine, Hilaire and Benjamin, concerning Trinidad and Tobago, as well as the previous Judgments on Competence in the cases of the Constitucional Tribunal and Ivcher Bronstein (1999), concerning Peru. This important case-law of protection of the Inter1 . Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Advisory Opinion n. 15, of 14.11.1997, on the Reports of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1997), Series A, n. 15, Concurring Opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, pp. 87 and 97-98, pars. 7 and 37. 2 . It is as guardian and master of its own jurisdiction (jurisdictio, jus dicere, the power to declare the Law) that, to the Inter-American Court, as judicial organ of supervision of the American Convention, is reserved the role of establishing the juridical bases for the construction of an international ordre public of observance and safeguard of human right, in the ambit of the application of the Convention. IACtHR, Resolution on Provisional Measures of Protection (of 25.05.1999), case James et all versus Trinidad and Tobago, Concurring Opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, pars. 7-8.