17 State makes no reference to the portion of the declaration, which reads “and provided that any judgment of the Court does not infringe, create, or abolish any existing rights or duties of any private citizen”, and considered that it is apparent that the State specifically acknowledges in this second part of the declaration that the Court has competence to give judgments in cases against Trinidad and Tobago. It may therefore be that, taking the first and second parts of the declaration together, the State was concerned that the giving effect in Trinidad and Tobago to the judgments of the Court should not have an adverse effect on the existing private rights of the citizens, and deprive them of rights they already enjoyed or impose on them duties to which they were not already subject. 56) The term could be interpreted to mean that, provided that there is no provision in the Constitution expressly prohibiting the State from accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, the recognition of this jurisdiction is complete and effective. In this sense, the State does not suggest that there are provisions of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago that prohibit the State from accepting the jurisdiction of the Court. 57) In light of the various possible interpretations of the term, it appears so ambiguous that its meaning and scope will depend upon a subjective judgment by the State as to what provisions of the Constitution are “relevant” and in what respect the State’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction must be “consistent” with those provisions, the term, would undermine the Court’s exclusive authority to determine its own jurisdiction, and thereby also render the term invalid. 58) The Commission also indicated that the term in the State’s declaration of acceptance is not authorized by Articles 62 or 75 of the Convention and is incompatible with the Convention’s object and purpose. 59) In conformity with Article 62(2) of the Convention, the “declaration may be made unconditionally, on the condition of reciprocity, for a specific period or for specific cases”. The State’s “reservation” does not invoke the requirement of reciprocity, or temporal limitations, nor does it define specific cases in which the Court will apply its jurisdiction. 60) Secondly, and in conformity with Article 75 of the Convention and, specifically Article 19 of the Vienna Convention, the State’s “reservation” is not permitted, as it is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. The “reservation” is also contrary to general principles of International Law. 61) Finally, the term, as Court to interpret and apply Trinidad and Tobago before and apply Convention rights State’s Constitution. interpreted by the State, would limit the ability of the certain provisions of the Convention in all cases against the Court, as it would permit the Tribunal to interpret only to the extent that such rights are protected in the 62) The Commission considered that the State’s position ignores the fact that it is the responsibility of the Court, not the State, to determine whether the domestic laws of the State, including its Constitution, are consistent with the rights protected by the Convention. It noted that the Inter-American Court has emphasized that the issue of jurisdiction in a particular case is one that only the Court, not States parties, can decide. This clearly extends to the interpretation of the terms included in