GAMI INVESTMENTS, INC. - NAFTAClaims

PRESIDENT PAULSSON: Yes.
MR. REISMAN: So assuming the eventuality which you have just
described of a conclusion that there is a prima facie jurisdiction and
the parties are instructed to continue, would that mean that the schedule
of submission that had been established earlier would simply go into
place mutatis mutandis with a different benchmark?
PRESIDENT PAULSSON: Mr. Perezcano can say what he thinks
also in respect to that.
MR. PEREZCANO [Interpreted from Spanish]: Mr. President,
perhaps it is confusion on our part, but a great deal in terms of how we
proceed will depend on the Tribunal's decision. And there are various
different alternatives, but if the Tribunal decides to proceed with the
whole case as presented by GAMI, then it becomes obviously a more
complicated. If the Tribunal decides that it doesn't have jurisdiction,
for example, to resolve the 1105 claim, then perhaps the expropriation
claim is simpler. If the decision is expropriation but 1105, then it
could be more complex.
The time that we would need to answer will really depend
largely on the Tribunal's decision when it makes the decision and the
form the decision takes.
If I could cite an example. If we are saying the Tribunal
might admit the entirety of the claim, and the other alternative is for
it to dismiss it, it might be simpler. But since the Tribunal could
decide to admit part of the claim and dismiss part of the claim, well
that will necessarily impact on the structure of our arguments. It
becomes difficult to have submitted a brief which we would then have to
adjust in light of the Tribunal's decision.
And I can tell you we are most willing to proceed in the most
expeditious possible fashion, but once we know the Tribunal's decision on
how we are going to proceed in this case and whether the case should
proceed.
PRESIDENT PAULSSON: I know what you are going to say. Go
ahead.
MR. ROH: Understanding the difficulties just expressed, as
of May 20th or so, Mexico was supposed to be prepared to submit its full
statement of defense on June 15th. That was the point at which the
Tribunal decided no, we are going to bifurcate, and it is no longer June
15th. And you gave us a new schedule within a couple of weeks that said
it was October 20th.
So at least since February they have had our statement of
claim and supposedly they were within three weeks of being ready for a
full statement of defense on the assumption they had to defend all. So
that part of it should be taken into consideration too. This has been a
prolonged process.
Thank you.
PRESIDENT PAULSSON: Those points are well taken. Equally,
the Tribunal has from its internal discussions already today over lunch
benefited from the discussion today, and has found that there are
elements of the case which commend themselves to us as requiring quite a
lot of prudence in the way we approach. And I don't think either side
would encourage us to act in a different way.
So the point you have just made, Mr. Roh, we will take
account of that when we make and communicate our decision and, depending
on the factors that Mr. Perezcano has mentioned, to the extent that we
find them relevant in the framework of the particular decision we reach-and
now I am only talking about the hypothesis that there will be a
continuation on the merits because otherwise, as you said, things are