• Copy the reference
  • Tutorial video

Lawyers, other representatives, expert(s), tribunal’s secretary

Award

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Additional Royalty Additional royalty agreed upon in the Third Amendment to the Mining Contract
ANDJE Agencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado
ANM Agencia Nacional de Minería
Annex A Documents List of documents accompanying Respondent's communication of 11 May 2018
Annual PTI Programa de Trabajos e Inversiones for each year of the production phase, which follows the exploitation sequence defined in the main PTI and contains a production forecast for the next 10 years
Annulment Procedure Proceso de nulidad started by Prodeco before the Tribunal Administrativo de Cundinamarca seeking annulment of the Contraloría 's Decision
Appeal Decision Decision of the Contralor General de la República of 21 August 2015 regarding Prodeco's recurso de apelación, by which it confirmed the Contraloría 's Decision
Arbitration Rules ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings
Art. Article
Assignment Contract Agreement of 4 May 2009 by which Mr. Maldonado and Mr. García assigned the 3ha Contract to CDJ, for a consideration of USD 1.75 M
Auto de imputación Auto de imputación de responsabilidad fiscal, issued by the Contraloría on 30 August 2013
Base Royalty Royalty provided for in the Mining Contract, which consisted of a 5% base royalty for each tonne of coal sold, which progressively increased up to 7.6% for the fifth year of production and beyond
Blended Coal Coal from the Calenturitas Mine blended with coal from other mines, namely La Jagua
Bn Billion
Brattle I First expert report by Colombia's damages expert, the Brattle Group, of 17 July 2017
Brattle II Second expert report by Colombia's damages expert, the Brattle Group, of 2 April 2018
C I Claimants' Memorial, dated 16 December 2016
C II Claimants' Reply Memorial, dated 29 January 2018
C III Claimants' Rejoinder on Preliminary Objections, dated 4 May 2018
C IV Claimants' submission on costs, dated 24 September 2018
Calenturitas Mine or Mine Open-pit mine of over 6,600 hectares known as Calenturitas, located in the municipalities of La Jagua de Ibirico, El Paso and Becerril
Carbocol Carbones de Colombia, S.A., a state-owned company with whom Prodeco entered into the Mining Contract
CDJ Carbones de la Jagua, S.A., one of the Prodeco Affiliates
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CET Carbones El Tesoro, S.A., one of the Prodeco Affiliates
Claimants Glencore International A.G. and C.I. Prodeco S.A.
Claimants' FirstApplication Claimants' letter of 22 August 2017
Claimants' SecondApplication Claimants' letter of 20 September 2017
CMU Consorcio Minero Unido, S.A., one of the Prodeco Affiliates
Coal Reference Price Coal price for calculating compensation under the Mining Contract
Conciliation Oral conciliation meeting, held on 28 March 2016
Commitment toNegotiate Acuerdo de Compromiso executed on 21 May 2009, pursuant to which Prodeco and Ingeominas agreed to formally negotiate an eighth amendment to the Mining Contract
Compass Lexecon I First expert report by Claimants' damages expert, Compass Lexecon, of 16 December 2016
Compass Lexecon II Second expert report by Claimants' damages expert, Compass Lexecon, of 29 January 2018
Compensation Scheme General compensation scheme that would be applied under the Mining Contract
Contracting Committee Ingeominas' Comité de Contratación Minera
Contraloría Contraloría General de la República
Contraloría's Decision Fallo no. 00482 de 30 de abril de 2015, por medio del cual se falla con responsabilidad fiscal respecto de unos implicados y sin responsabilidad fiscal en relación con otro dentro del proceso de responsabilidad fiscal CD-000244 (Doc. C-32) - decision by which the Contraloría found Prodeco liable for the Fiscal Liability Amount
COP Colombian peso
Cooperation Agreement Agreement to exchange information between SIC and ANDJE, signed on 13 June 2017
Costs of the Proceeding Lodging fee and advance on costs paid to ICSID by the Parties
CPHB Claimants' Post-Hearing Brief, of 8 August 2018
Criminal Complaint "Denuncia penal en averiguación de responsables por la presunta comisión de delitos contra la administración pública," filed by the ANDJE on 10 September 2017 against Prodeco and Glencore
Defense Expenses Expenses incurred by the Parties to further their position in the arbitration
Definitive Price Term employed in the Seventh Amendment to the Mining Contract, in relation to the payment of Royalties and GIC
Disputed Documents 41 exhibits accompanying Respondent's Counter-Memorial
Doc. C-# Claimants' exhibit
Doc. CL-# Claimants' legal authority
Doc. H-1 Claimants' Opening Statement of 28 May 2018
Doc. R-# Respondent's exhibit
Doc. R-100 Respondent's exhibit R-100 among the Disputed Documents
Doc. RL-# Respondent's legal authority
Ecocarbon Empresa Colombiana de Carbón Ltda. - Ecocarbón
Eighth Amendment Eighth amendment to the Mining Contract, executed by Prodeco and Ingeominas on 22 January 2010
Fenoco Ferrocarriles del Norte de Colombia S.A.
FET Fair and equitable treatment
FGN Fiscalía General de la Nación
FGN Documents Documents gathered from FGN
Fifth Amendment Fifth amendment to the Mining Contract, executed by Prodeco and Ingeominas on 15 December 2004
FIR Clause Fork in the road clause contained in Article 11(4) of the Treaty.
First Session First session and procedural consultation held by the Tribunal with the Parties on 28 September 2016
Fiscal Liability Amount Amount of COP 60 Bn (approximately USD 25 M at the exchange rate of the time) which Prodeco was ordered to pay pursuant to the Contraloría 's Decision
Fiscal Liability Proceeding Administrative proceedings initiated by the Contraloría against Prodeco and other individuals
Fn. Footnote
FOB Free on board
FOB Price The FOB Colombian port price for Colombian steam coal for the respective week as published in the ICR, adjusted for calorific value
Fork in the RoadObjection Respondent's objection to jurisdiction based on the FIR Clause
GIC Gross income compensation (Compensación por Ingresos Brutos)
Glencore Glencore International A.G.
Hearing Hearing on Jurisdiction and the Merits, held on 28 May - 2 June 2018
HT, Day #, p. #, l. # Hearing Transcript, volume, page and line
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICR Platts "International Coal Report"
ICSID or Centre International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
ICSID Convention Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, of 14 October 1966
IFE Informe Final de Exploración
ILC Articles International Law Commission Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries (2001) (Doc. CL-24)
Illegality Objection Respondent's objection to jurisdiction in relation to the legality of the Eighth Amendment
Immediate Reaction Team Equipo Especial de Reacción Inmediata created by the Contralora General de la República, Ms. Sandra Morelli, on 8 October 2010
InadmissibilityObjection Respondent's objection to jurisdiction based on the alleged inadmissibility of Claimants' claims
Ingeominas Instituto Colombiano de Geología y Minería
Initial Version of the Eighth Amendment First version of the eighth amendment to the Mining Contract, executed between Prodeco and Ingeominas on 9 December 2009
Integrated UseAgreement Acuerdo de Uso Integrado de Infraestructura Minera executed by the Prodeco Affiliates in January 2008, for the integrated use of mining infrastructure in the La Jagua project
Investment Dispute Letter from Claimants to the President of Colombia, formally notifying a dispute under the Treaty, dated 28 August 2015
M Million
McManus I First Witness Statement of Mr. Mark McManus of 16 December 2016
McManus II Second witness statement of Mr. Mark McManus of 29 January 2018
Minercol Empresa Nacional Minera Ltda., Minercol Ltda.
Mining Contract Contract 044/89, executed between Prodeco and Carbocol, on 21 February 1989, for the exploration, construction and exploitation of a coal project in the Calenturitas Mine
Mr. Ballesteros Mr. Mario Ballesteros, Director General of Ingeominas between 2 March 2007 and 7 September 2010
Mr. Maldonado Mr. Jorge Maldonado, ex-employee of the Ministry of Mines and of Ingeominas' predecessors
Mr. McManus Mr. Mark McManus, Prodeco's President and CEO since April 2013
Mr. Nagle Mr. Gary Nagle, Prodeco's Director from May 2005 to July 2013 and CEO from January 2008 to April 2013
MT Million tonnes
MTA Million tonnes per annum
Nagle I First witness statement of Mr. Nagle of 16 December 2016
Nagle II Second witness statement of Mr. Nagle of 29 January 2018
Nagle III Third witness statement of Mr. Nagle of 4 May 2018
NPV Net present value
Para. Paragraph
Paredes I First witness statement of Mr. Paredes of 15 June 2017
Paredes II Second witness statement of Mr. Paredes of 28 March 2018
Parties Claimants and Respondent
PO No. 2 Procedural Order No. 2, dated 4 November 2017
PO No. 3 Procedural Order No. 3, dated 4 January 2018
PO No. 4 Procedural Order No. 4, dated 24 April 2018
PO No. 5 Procedural Order No. 5, dated 17 May 2018
PO No. 6 Procedural Order No. 6, dated 31 July 2018
Preliminary Investigation Indagación preliminar into Ingeominas, opened by the Contraloría on 19 October 2010
Privilege Log Privilege log accompanying Claimants' letter of 5 February 2018
Privilege LogDocuments Documents which were subject to legal or settlement privilege
Privileged Documents Privilege Log Documents and Redacted Documents
Procedure for Contractual Annulment Judicial procedure started by the ANM for the annulment of the Eighth Amendment
Prodeco C.I. Prodeco S.A.
Prodeco Affiliates Companies which are owned by Prodeco (CDJ, CMU, and CET)
Prodeco's Port Prodeco's port facilities for the export of coal, located in Santa Marta
Protocol Protocol to the Treaty
PTI Programa de Trabajos e Inversiones (work and investment plan)
R I Colombia's Objections to Jurisdiction and Admissibility and Counter-Memorial, dated 16 November 2017
R II Colombia's Reply on Preliminary Objections and Rejoinder on the Merits, dated 2 April 2018
R III Colombia's submission on costs, dated 24 September 2018.
Reasonable DefenseExpenses Defense Expenses which a standard claimant has to incur in order to properly present and defend its claim
Reconsideration Decision Contralora Delegada 's decision of July 2015 to reject Prodeco's recurso de reposición against the Contraloría 's Decision
Redacted Documents Redacted documents submitted by Claimants on 5 February 2018
Report Technical Report on the Jerritt Canyon Mine, prepared for Queenstake Resources Ltd., dated 20 April 2017
Request for Conciliation Conciliation Request filed by Prodeco on 30 December 2015
Respondent or the Republic or Colombia The Republic of Colombia
Respondent's FGN Request Respondent's letter of 15 May 2018
Respondent's PrivilegeLog Request Respondent's request for Claimants to produce Privileged Documents, dated 23 February 2018
RfA or the Request Claimants' Request for Arbitration, dated 4 March 2016
RPHB Respondent's Post-Hearing Brief of 8 August 2018
Seized Emails Emails seized by SIC from Prodeco computers
Seventh Amendment Seventh amendment to the Mining Contract, executed by Prodeco and Ingeominas on 15 February 2007
SGC Servicio Geológico Colombiano
SIC Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio
Sixth Amendment Sixth amendment to the Mining Contract, executed by Prodeco and Ingeominas on 15 December 2005
Supplementary Compensation Supplementary compensation provided for under the original Mining Contract, applicable when the price of coal rose above USD 40 per tonne
Technical Support Report Report by Contraloría 's technical support team, dated 20 May 2013
Third Amendment Third amendment to the Mining Contract, executed by Prodeco and Minercol on 6 March 2001
Tovar Silva Report Technical report on Prodeco, issued by one of the members of the Contraloría 's Immediate Reaction Team, Ms. Johanna Tovar Silva, on 2 March 2011
Transition Period Período de transición provided for in Clause 3 of the Eighth Amendment
Treaty/BIT Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of Colombia on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, signed on 17 May 2006, which entered into force on 6 October 2009 (Doc. C-6)
Tribunal Witnesses Persons called by the Tribunal to testify as witnesses at the Hearing
TRM Tasa Representativa del Mercado
Umbrella Clause Umbrella clause contained in Art. 10(2) of the Treaty
Umbrella Clause Objection Respondent's objection to jurisdiction based on the Umbrella Clause
USD United States dollar
Vargas I First witness statement of Dr. Soraya Vargas, Respondent's witness
VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969
Viability Study Study of the "Viabilidad para la suscripción del Otrosí No. 8 modificatorio del Contrato 044-89" prepared by Ingeominas in January 2010
1988 Mining Code 1988 Colombian Código de Minas
2003 PTI Long-term Programa de Trabajos e Inversiones delivered by Prodeco in December 2003
2006 PTI Long-term Programa de Trabajos e Inversiones delivered by Prodeco in November 2006
2010 PTI Long-term Programa de Trabajos e Inversiones delivered by Prodeco in June 2010
3ha Contract Contract for 3 hectares of land, granted to Messrs. Jorge Isaac Maldonado Mestre and César Augusto García Varga

LIST OF CASES

AES AES Summit Generation Limited and AES- Tisza Eromu Kft. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Award of 23 September 2010 (Doc. RL-68).
Alghanim & Sons Fouad Alghanim & Sons Co. for General Trading & Contracting, W.L.L. and Fouad Mohammed Thunyan Alghanim v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB-13-38, Award of 14 December 2017 (Doc. RL-176).
Al Warraq Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Award of 15 December 2014 (Doc. RL-41).
Ampal-AmericanIsrael Corp Ampal-American Israel Corp. and others v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss of 21 February 2017 (Doc. RL-158).
Apotex Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award of 25 August 2014 (Doc. CL-140).
Arif Mr. Franck Charles Arif v. Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23), Award of 8 April 2013 (Doc. CL-93).
Azinian Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian, & Ellen Baca v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/2, Award of 1 November 1999 (Doc. RL-60).
Azurix Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award of 14 July 2006 (Doc. CL-44).
Bayindir Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Award of 27 August 2009 (Doc. RL-52).
Bureau Veritas Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC B.V. v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/9, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction of 29 May 2009 (Doc. RL-8).
Cargill Cargill, Incorporated v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/05/2, Award of 18 September 2009 (Doc. RL-65).
Cervin Cervin Investissements S.A. and Rhone Investissements S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/2, Award of 7 March 2017 (Doc. RL-177).
Chorzow Factory Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), PCIJ, Claim for Indemnity (Jurisdiction), 26 July 1927, Series A, No. 9 (1927).
CMS CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/01/8, Award of 12 May 2005 (Doc. CL-41).
Clayton et al. William Ralph Clayton and others v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability of 17 March 2015 (Doc. CL-141).
Convial Callao Convial Callao S.A. and CCI - Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura S.A. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/2, Award of 21 May 2013 (Doc. CL-135).
Crystallex Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2), Award of 4 April 2016 (Doc. CL-95).
Deutsche Bank Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/02, Award of 31 October 2012 (Doc. CL-92).
ECE ECE Projektmanagement International GmbH and Kommanditgesellschaft PANTA Achtundsechzigste Grundstücksgesellschaft mbH & Co v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2010-5, Award of 19 September 2013 (Doc. RL-59).
EDF EDF (Services) Limited v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award of 8 October 2009 (Doc. CL-113).
Eli Lilly and Co. Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, Final Award of 16 March 2017 (Doc. RL-62).
ELSI Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI), Judgment of 20 July 1989, I.C.J. Reports 1989 (Doc. CL-10).
EnCana EnCana Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3481, UNCITRAL, Award of 3 February 2006, para. 194 (Doc. CL-131).
Feldman Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1), Award of 16 December 2002, para. 197 (Doc. CL-30).
Flughafen Flughafen Zurich A.G. and Gestión e Ingeniería IDC S.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/19, Award of 18 November 2014 (Doc. RL-42).
Frontier Petroleum Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award of 12 November 2010 (Doc. CL-134).
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), ICJ, Decision, ICJ Reports 1997 of 25 September 1997, para. 79 (Doc. RL-17).
Garanti Koza Garanti Koza LLP v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/20, Award, 19 December 2016 (Doc. RL-73).
Generation Ukraine Generation Ukraine Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9, Award of 16 September 2003, para. 20.30 (Doc. RL-172).
Glamis Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States of America, UNICITRAL, Award of 8 June 2009 (Doc. RL-18).
Grynberg et al. Rachel S. Grynberg and others v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award of 10 December 2010 (Doc. RL-159).
Hamester Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award of 18 June 2010 (Doc. RL-9).
H&H Enterprises H&H Enterprises Investment Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/15, Award of 6 May 2014 (Doc. RL-2).
Impregilo Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Award of 21 June 2011 (Doc. CL-84).
Inceysa Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award of 2 August 2006 (Doc. RL-13)
Invesmart, B.V. Invesmart, B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL case, Award of 26 June 2009 (Doc. CL-150)
Jan de Nul Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Award of 6 November 2008. (Doc. RL-70).
Lauder Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Award of 3 September 2001.
Lemire Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 14 January 2010 (Doc. CL-74).
Lemire (Award) Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Award of 28 March 2011 (Doc. CL-83).
LG&E LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International, Inc. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1), Decision on Liability of 3 October 2006 (Doc. CL-46).
Loewen Loewen Group Inc and Raymons L. Loewen v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)98/3, Award of 26 June 2003.
Mamidoil JetoilGreek Petroleum Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Société Anonyme S.A. v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, Award of 30 March 2015 (Doc. CL-125).
Metalclad Metaclad Corporation v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award of 30 August 2000 (Doc. CL-19).
Metal-Tech Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award of 4 October 2013 (Doc. RL-122).
Methanex Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, NAFTA-UNCITRAL, Final Award on Jurisdiction and the Merits of 3 August 2005 (RL-126).
Mondev Mondev International Ltd v. United States of America, ICSID Additional Facility Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2), Award of 11 October 2002 (Doc. CL-28).
MTD MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. And MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award of 25 May 2004 (Doc. CL-36).
Murphy II Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v. Republic of Ecuador [II], PCA Case No. 2012-16 (formerly AA 434), Partial Final Award of 6 May 2016 (Doc. CL-145).
Noble Ventures Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, Award of 12 October 2005 (Doc. CL-130).
Occidental Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (UNCITRAL), Final Award of 1 July 2004 (Doc. CL-37).
OI European OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/25, Award dated 10 March 2015 (Doc. RL-61).
Pantechniki Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21, Award of 30 July 2009, (Doc. RL-3).
Parkerings Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award of 11 September 2007 (Doc. RL-57).
Philip Morris (Jurisdiction) Philip Morris Brands Sarl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Decision on Jurisdiction of 2 July 2013 (Doc. RL-4).
Philip Morris Philip Morris Brand Sarl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award of 8 July 2016 (Doc. RL-179).
Phoenix Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award of 15 April 2009 (Doc. RL-37).
Plama Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award of 27 August 2008 (Doc. RL-36).
PSEG PSEG Global Inc. Et al. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, Award of 19 January 2007 (Doc. CL-48).
Rompetrol The Rompetrol Goup N.V. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3, Award of 6 May 2013, para. 152 (Doc. RL-173).
Roussalis Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1, Award of 7 December 2011 (Doc. RL-58).
Rusoro Rusoro Mining Limited v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5, Award of 22 August 2016 (Doc. CL-147).
Rumeli Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award of 29 July 2008 (Doc. CL-60).
Salini Salini Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/39, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 23 February 2018 (Doc. RL-156).
Saluka Saluka Investments BV v. Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award, 17 March 2006 (Doc. CL-43).
SAUR SAUR International SA v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 6 June 2012 (Doc. RL-14).
S.D. Myers S.D. Myers v. Canada, Partial Award of 13 November 2000 (Doc. RL-63).
Sempra Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award of 28 September 2007.
SGS SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision on Exceptions to Jurisdiction of 29 January 2004 (Doc. RL-6).
SGS v. Paraguay SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No ARB/07/29, Decision on Jurisdiction of 12 February 2010 (Doc. CL-115).
Spentex Spentex Netherlands B.V. and Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/26, Award of 27 December 2016.
Suez (Separate opinion by Judge Nikken) Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Separate Opinion of Arbitrator Pedro Nikken of 30 July 2010 (Doc. RL-55).
Supervisión y Control Supervisión y Control, S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/4, Award of 18 January 2017 (Doc. RL-43).
Swisslion Swisslion DOO Skopje v. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/16, Award of 6 July 2012 (Doc. RL-74).
Tecmed Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award of 29 May 2003 (Doc. CL-32).
TECO Guatemala TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award of 19 December 2013 (CL-136).
Thunderbird International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. Mexico, NAFTA, Award of 26 January 2006 (Doc. CL-107).
Tokios Tokeles Tokios Tokeles v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Award of 26 July 2007 (Doc. RL-69).
Total Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, Decision on Liability, 27 December 2010 (Doc. CL-82).
Toto Costruzioni Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v. Republic of Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12, Award of 7 June 2012 (Doc. CL-130).
UAB UAB E energija (Lithuania) v. Republic of Latvia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/33, Award of 22 December 2017 (Doc. RL-174).
Unglaube Marion and Reinhard Unglaube v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case Nos. ARB/08/1 and ARB/09/20, Award of 16 May 2012 (Doc. CL-87).
Urbaser Urbaser S.A. and others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award of 8 December 2016 (Doc. RL-175).
Vivendi Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment of 3 July 2002 (Doc. CL-99).
Waste ManagementII Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States ("Number 2"), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award of 30 April 2004.
World Duty Free World Duty Free Company Limited v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award of 4 October 2006 (Doc. RL-11).

 

I. INTRODUCTION

1.
This case concerns a dispute submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ["ICSID" or the "Centre"] on the basis of (i) the Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of Colombia on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, signed on 17 May 2006, which entered into force on 6 October 2009 [the "Treaty" or the "BIT"], and (ii) the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, dated 14 October 1966 [the "ICSID Convention"], which entered into force for Switzerland and for Colombia on 6 October 2009.

(1) The Parties

A. Claimants - Glencore International A.G. and C.I. Prodeco S.A.

2.
The Claimants are (i) Glencore International A.G. ["Glencore"], a company constituted under the laws of and having its seat in the Swiss Confederation, and (ii) C.I. Prodeco S.A. ["Prodeco"], a wholly-owned subsidiary of Glencore, incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Colombia. Glencore and Prodeco are jointly referred to as "Claimants". Glencore is one of the largest global diversified natural resource companies, engaged in the trade and mining of commodities.1
3.
Claimants are represented in this arbitration by:

Mr. Nigel Blackaby
Ms. Caroline Richard
Mr. Alex Wilbraham
Mr. Gustavo Topalian
Ms. Jessica Moscoso
Ms. Ankita Ritwik
Ms. Amy Cattle
Mr. Diego Rueda
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
700 13th Street, NW
10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
United States of America
Tel.: +1 202 777 4500
Fax: +1 202 777 4555
E-mail: nigel.blackaby@freshfields.com
caroline.richard@freshfields.com
alex.wilbraham@freshfields.com
gustavo.topalian@freshfields.com
ankita.ritwik@freshfields.com
jessica.moscoso@freshfields.com
amy.cattle@freshfields.com
diego.rueda@freshfields.com

Mr. Jose Manuel Alvarez Zárate
ALVAREZ ZÁRATE & ASOCIADOS
Calle 82 No. 11-37, Oficina 501
Bogotá D.C.
Colombia
Tel.: +57 1 691 5110
Fax: +57 1 1617 0299
E-mail: josealvarez.zarate@hotmail.com

B. Respondent - The Republic of Colombia

4.
The Respondent is the Republic of Colombia ["Colombia", the "Republic" or "Respondent"].
5.
Respondent is represented in this arbitration by:

Mr. Nicolás Palau Van Hissenhoven
DIRECCIÓN DE INVERSIÓN EXTRANJERA, SERVICIOS,
MINISTERIO DE COMERCIO, INDUSTRIA Y TURISMO
Calle 28 No.13A-15, piso 5
Bogota D.C.
Colombia
Tel.: +57 1 606 7676
Fax: +57 1 606 7676 / ext. 1323
E-mail: npalau@mincit.gov.co

Ms. Ana María Ordóñez Puentes
Mr. César Augusto Méndez Becerra
AGENCIA NACIONAL DE DEFENSA
JURÍDICA DEL ESTADO
Carrera 7 No. 75-66, pisos 2 y 3
Bogota D.C.
Colombia
Tel.: +57 1 255 8955 / ext. 777
Fax: +57 1 255 8933
E-mail: ana.ordonez@defensajuridica.gov.co
cesar.mendez@defensajuridica.gov.co

Prof. Eduardo Silva Romero
Mr. José Manuel García Represa
DECHERT (PARIS) LLP
32 rue de Monceau
Paris, 75008
France
Tel.: +33 1 5757 8014
Fax: +33 1 5757 8081
E-mail: eduardo.silvaromero@dechert.com
jose-manuel.garciarepresa@dechert.com

Mr. Alvaro Galindo Cardona
Mr. Juan Felipe Merizalde
DECHERT LLP
1900 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-1110
United States of America
Tel.: +1 202 261 3396
Fax: +1 202 261 3333
E-mail: alvaro.galindo@dechert.com
juanfelipe.merizalde@dechert.com

Prof. Pierre Mayer
20 rue des Pyramides
Paris, 75001
France
Tel.: +33 1 8509 0158
Fax: +33 1 0871 5178
E-mail: mayer@pierremayer.com

6.
The Claimants and the Respondent shall be jointly referred to as the "Parties".

(2) The Treaty

7.
Art. 11 of the Treaty regulates the settlement of disputes between a Party and an investor of the other Party to the Treaty:2

"(1) If an investor of a Party considers that a measure applied by the other Party is inconsistent with an obligation of this Agreement, thus causing loss or damage to him or his investment, he may request consultations with a view to resolving the matter amicably.

(2) Any such matter which has not been settled within a period of six months from the date of the written request for consultations may be referred to the courts or administrative tribunals of the Party concerned or to international arbitration. In the latter event the investor has the choice between either of the following:

(a) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) provided for by the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States, opened for signature at Washington on March 18, 1965; and

(b) an ad-hoc arbitral tribunal which, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties to the dispute, shall be established under the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

(3) Each Party hereby gives its unconditional and irrevocable consent to the submission of an investment dispute to international arbitration in accordance with paragraph 2 above, except for disputes with regard to Article 10 paragraph 2 of this Agreement.

(4) Once the investor has referred the dispute to either a national tribunal or any of the international arbitration mechanisms provided for in paragraph 2 above, the choice of the procedure shall be final.

(5) An investor may not submit a dispute for resolution according to this Article if more than five years have elapsed from the date the investor first acquired or should have acquired knowledge of the events giving rise to the dispute.

(6) The Party which is party to the dispute shall at no time whatsoever during the process assert as a defence its immunity or the fact that the investor has received, by virtue of an insurance contract, a compensation covering the whole or part of the incurred damage.

(7) Neither Party shall pursue through diplomatic channels a dispute submitted to international arbitration unless the other Party does not abide by and comply with the arbitral award.

(8) The arbitral award shall be final and binding for the parties to the dispute and shall be executed without delay according to the law of the Party concerned."

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

8.
This proceeding has been riddled with procedural incidents. In order to present a proper account of the history of this arbitration the Tribunal will first present a chronology of the procedure (1.) and will then recount in detail the main procedural incidents (2.).

(1) Chronology of the Procedure

9.
On 4 March 2016, ICSID received a request for arbitration of the same date from Glencore International A.G. and C.I. Prodeco S.A. against the Republic of Colombia, together with Exhibits C-1 through C-66 ["Request"].
10.
On 16 March 2016, the Secretary-General of ICSID registered the Request in accordance with Art. 36(3) of the ICSID Convention and notified the Parties of the registration. In the Notice of Registration, the Secretary-General invited the Parties to proceed to constitute an arbitral tribunal as soon as possible in accordance with Rule 7(d) of ICSID's Rules of Procedure for the Institution of Conciliation and Arbitration Proceedings.
11.
The Parties agreed to constitute the Tribunal in accordance with Art. 37(2)(a) of the ICSID Convention as follows: the Tribunal would consist of three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each Party and the third, presiding arbitrator to be appointed by agreement of the Parties.
12.
On 4 May 2016, Claimants appointed Mr. Oscar M. Garibaldi, a national of the United States of America as well as a national of the Argentine Republic, as arbitrator in this case. Mr. Garibaldi accepted his appointment on 6 May 2016.
13.
On 3 June 2016, Respondent appointed Mr. Christopher Thomas, a national of Canada, as arbitrator in this case. Mr. Thomas accepted his appointment on 7 June 2016.
14.
On 29 July 2016, the Parties appointed Prof. Juan Fernandez-Armesto, a national of the Kingdom of Spain, as President of the Tribunal. Prof. Fernandez-Armesto accepted his appointment on 3 August 2016.
15.
On 4 August 2016, the Secretary-General, in accordance with Rule 6(1) of the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings ["Arbitration Rules"], notified the Parties that all three arbitrators had accepted their appointments and that the Tribunal was therefore deemed to have been constituted on that date. Ms. Alicia Martín Blanco, ICSID Legal Counsel, was designated to serve as Secretary of the Tribunal.
16.
On 28 September 2016, in accordance with ICSID Arbitration Rule 13(1), the Tribunal held a first session and preliminary procedural consultation with the Parties by teleconference ["First Session"].
17.
On 4 November 2016, following the First Session, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 1 recording the agreement of the Parties on procedural matters and the decisions of the Tribunal on disputed issues. Procedural Order No. 1 provides, inter alia, that the applicable Arbitration Rules would be those in effect from 10 April 2006, that the procedural languages would be English and Spanish, that the place of proceeding would be Washington, D.C., and that Mrs. Krystle M. Baptista would act as Assistant to the Tribunal. Procedural Order No. 1 also sets out three procedural calendars envisaging three different scenarios for the written phase.
18.
On 16 December 2016, Claimants filed their Memorial on the Merits, together with:

- Witness Statements of:
o Mr. Gary Nagle
o Mr. Mark McManus
- Expert Report of Compass Lexecon
- Exhibits C-67 through C-184
- Legal Authorities CL-1 through CL-95

19.
The submission was transmitted to Respondent and the Tribunal on 2 January 2017, in accordance with paragraph 15.2 of Procedural Order No. 1.
20.
On 2 February 2017, Respondent filed its Request for Bifurcation, together with Exhibits R-1 through R-25, and Legal Authorities RL-1 through RL-34.
21.
On 2 March 2017, Claimants filed their Response to Respondent's Request for Bifurcation, together with Exhibits C-185 through C-194, and Legal Authorities CL-96 through CL-127.
22.
On 3 April 2017, the Tribunal issued its decision on Respondent's Request for Bifurcation. The Tribunal decided not to bifurcate the proceedings, and to address the jurisdictional objections raised by Respondent together with the merits, following the procedural calendar established as Scenario 3 in Procedural Order No. 1.
23.
On 17 July 2017, Respondent filed its Objections to Jurisdiction and Admissibility and Counter-Memorial, together with:

- Witness Statements of:
o Mr. Oscar Paredes
o Ms. Soraya Vargas
- Expert Report of Messrs. Frank Graves and John Dean of the Brattle Group, together with Exhibits BR-1 through BR-124
- Exhibits R-26 through R-203
- Legal Authorities RL-35 through RL-114

28.
On 2 October 2017, Respondent submitted its response to Claimants' Second Application, together with Exhibits R-214 through R-230, and Legal Authorities RL-121 through RL-143, requesting that the Tribunal reject it.
29.
On 26 September 2017, following exchanges between the Parties, the Centre transmitted the Parties' respective requests for production of documents. On 11 October 2017, the Tribunal postponed its decision on the disputed document production requests, pending the full review and deliberations on Claimants' applications.
31.
By letter of 14 November 2017, Respondent filed observations on Procedural Order No. 2, together with Exhibits R-231 through R-235, and Legal Authorities RL-145 through RL-147. The Tribunal invited Claimants to comment on Respondent's letter in their Reply Memorial.
34.
On 4 January 2018, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 3 concerning its decision on the Parties' request for production of documents in their respective Redfern Schedules. On 11 January 2018, following a request by Claimants and Respondent's comments, the Tribunal granted Claimants an extension of time to submit the documents subject to a production order under Procedural Order No. 3.
35.
On 30 January 2018, Claimants filed their Reply on the Merits, together with:

- Second Witness Statements of:
o Mr. Gary Nagle
o Mr. Mark McManus
- Second Expert Report of Compass Lexecon
- Exhibits C-229 through C-294, and resubmitted Exhibits C-50, C-56, and C-103
- Legal Authorities CL-127.1 through CL-149

36.
On 23 February 2018, Respondent submitted a letter, together with Exhibits R-238 through R-240, asking the Tribunal inter alia :

- to order Claimants to produce unredacted copies of the documents that had been produced in redacted form,

- to produce the documents included in the privilege log submitted by Claimants with redactions only in the documents exchanged with external counsel in the relevant portions where legal advice had been sought or given,

- to complete their production of documents in accordance with Procedural Order No. 3 and to confirm as much.

37.
On 2 March 2018, Claimants submitted their response to Respondent's letter, in which they requested that the Tribunal dismiss Respondent's request of 23 February 2018, and confirmed that they had produced and/or logged all the documents in their possession, custody or control responsive to the Tribunal's orders and that they would produce any other documents that might subsequently come into their possession, custody or control.
39.
By letter of 9 March 2018, Respondent submitted comments on the Tribunal's decision and requested the Tribunal's instructions to gather and marshal into the record evidence collected from the SIC by the General Prosecutor in the context of a domestic criminal investigation into the illegalities surrounding the Eighth Amendment. By letter of 12 March 2018, Claimants submitted observations on the Respondent's letter, and asked the Tribunal to decline Respondent's proposed procedure to address its request.
40.
On 17 March 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the Parties instructing Respondent on the steps to follow in order to gather the evidence collected by the General Prosecutor and marshal it into the record, and recommending that the Parties try to reach an agreement on the marshalling of all or a part of the documents before any application was presented to the Tribunal.
41.
On 26 March 2018, following communications from the Parties, the Tribunal notified them of its decision to grant a 4-day extension to Respondent to submit its Reply on Preliminary Objections and Rejoinder on the Merits, and stated that Claimants would also be granted a 4-day extension of their deadline to present their Rejoinder on Preliminary Objections.
42.
By letter of 27 March 2018, Respondent informed the Tribunal of the Parties' inability to reach an agreement with regard to the production of the unredacted documents and privilege log documents and, according to the Tribunal's communications of 6 and 17 March 2018, requested that the Tribunal order Claimants to produce the documents included in its document-by-document request, sent to Claimants on 12 March 2018.
43.
On 2 April 2018, Respondent submitted its Rejoinder on the Merits and Reply on Jurisdiction, together with:

- Second Witness Statements of:
o Mr. Oscar Paredes
o Ms. Soraya Vargas
- Second Expert Report of Messrs. Frank Graves of The Brattle Group, John Dean of JD Energy and Landy Stinnet of FGM Consulting Group, Inc., together with Exhibits BR-125 through BR-190
- Exhibits R-241 through R-348
- Legal Authorities RL-148 through RL-186

44.
By letter of 3 April 2018, Claimants submitted their observations on Respondent's letter of 27 March 2018 asking the Tribunal to reject Respondent's request.
45.
By letter of 20 April 2018, Claimants requested the Tribunal's intervention regarding a notice that Prodeco had received from the National Mining Agency ["ANM"] stating that a commission composed of Colombia's international external counsel in this arbitration, Colombia's economic experts, Colombia's internal counsel for this arbitration (ANDJE) and several ANM officers would visit the Calenturitas mine between 30 April and 2 May 2018. Claimants alleged that the visit had no bona fide regulatory purpose but was rather aimed at gathering additional information for this arbitration, and requested that the Tribunal order Colombia to refrain from imposing a unilateral site visit for the purposes of this arbitration and to refrain from visiting the mine site without the Tribunal's authorization.
46.
On 24 April 2018, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 4 concerning the production of the redacted documents and the privilege log documents initially requested by Respondent in its communication of 23 February 2018. The Tribunal determined inter alia that while Claimants had not strictly complied with the Tribunal's instructions in Procedural Order No. 2 concerning privilege-based objections, this departure from the established procedure had not caused Respondent irreparable harm. As a consequence, the Tribunal decided not to dismiss Claimants' objections based on privilege in limine. As to the merits of the objections, the Tribunal found that legal privilege extends not only to outside counsel, but also to in-house lawyers and found no evidence suggesting that Claimants had waived legal or, to the extent relevant, settlement privilege. The Tribunal also directed Claimants' lead counsel to submit an affidavit confirming that each of the relevant documents met all of the privilege requirements identified by the Tribunal in the order and to produce all the relevant documents that did not. In light of the proximity of the hearing, the Tribunal also took the opportunity to call a number of persons to testify as witnesses at the hearing.
47.
On 25 April 2018, Respondent submitted its comments on Claimants' letter regarding the site visit and requested that the Tribunal reject Claimants' allegations and not to intervene in any way in relation to the visit planned to the Calenturitas mine.
48.
On 27 April 2018, the Tribunal issued its decision regarding the site visit. The Tribunal found no reason to deny the visit, so long as the precise dates were properly agreed between the Parties in order to facilitate Respondent's access and minimize the inconvenience to Claimants.
49.
On 30 April 2018, and further to the Tribunal having called certain persons to testify as witnesses at the hearing ["Tribunal Witnesses"] in Procedural Order No. 4, the Parties submitted an agreed proposal concerning those witnesses.
50.
On 30 April 2018, Claimants' lead counsel submitted a certification and affidavit in accordance with Procedural Order No. 4 and produced, in unredacted form, the documents that did not meet the privilege requirements established by the Tribunal in the order. On 1 May 2018, the Parties agreed that Mr. Blackaby's affidavit of 30 April 2018 should be submitted to the Tribunal without its annexes, pursuant to Procedural Order No. 2.
51.
On 4 May 2018, Claimants submitted their Rejoinder on Jurisdiction, together with:

- Third Witness Statement of Mr. Gary Nagle
- Exhibits C-295 through C-327, and resubmitted Exhibits C-90 and C-260
- Legal Authority CL-150

52.
On 9 and 10 May 2018, respectively, the Parties confirmed the witnesses and experts that they wished to cross-examine at the hearing.
53.
On 11 May 2018, Claimants sought leave to include a technical report as a new document into the record.
57.
On 14 May 2018, the Tribunal held a pre-hearing organizational meeting with the Parties by telephone conference.
58.
On 17 May 2018, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 5 concerning the organization of the hearing.
59.
On 18 May 2018, the Tribunal notified the Parties regarding its decision not to admit into the record any of the documents requested by the Parties and indicated that a full decision would follow. In particular, the Tribunal declined to admit the following documents: (i) the technical report identified by Claimants in their email of 11 May 2018; (ii) the FGN Documents; and (iii) the Annex A Documents.
60.
A hearing on jurisdiction and the merits was held in Washington, D.C. from 28 May to 2 June 2018 [the "Hearing"]. The following persons were present at the Hearing:
Tribunal :
Prof. Juan Fernandez-Armesto President
Mr. Oscar M. Garibaldi Arbitrator
Mr. J. Christopher Thomas QC Arbitrator
Assistant to the Tribunal : Ms. Krystle M. Baptista Assistant to the Tribunal
ICSID Secretariat :
Ms. Alicia Martín Blanco Secretary of the Tribunal
For Claimants :
Counsel:
Mr. Nigel Blackaby Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Ms. Caroline Richard Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Mr. Alex Wilbraham Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Mr. Gustavo Topalian Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Ms. Ankita Ritwik Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Ms. Jessica Moscoso Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Ms. Amy Cattle Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Mr. Diego Rueda Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Ms. Brianna Gorence Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Ms. Roopa Mathews Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Ms. Sandra Diaz Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Mr. Israel Guerrero Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Mr. Joe Arias Tapia Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Mr. Reynaldo Pastor Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
Mr. Jose Manuel Alvarez Zárate Alvarez Zárate & Asociados
Parties:
Mr. Jonathan Vanderkar Glencore International A.G.
Mr. Oscar Gómez C.I. Prodeco S.A.
Ms. Natalia Anaya C.I. Prodeco S.A.
Mr. Jader Yubrán C.I. Prodeco S.A.
For Respondent :
Counsel:
Prof. Eduardo Silva Romero Dechert (Paris) LLP
Prof. Pierre Mayer Pierre Mayer
Mr. José Manuel García Represa Dechert (Paris) LLP
Mr. Juan Felipe Merizalde Dechert LLP
Mr. David Attanasio Dechert LLP
Mr. Luis Miguel Velarde Saffer Dechert (Paris) LLP
Mr. Javier Echeverri Díaz Dechert (Paris) LLP
Ms. Ana María Duran Dechert LLP
Ms. Clara Francisca Peroni Dechert (Paris) LLP
Parties:
Mr. Luis Guillermo Vélez CabreraAgencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado
Ms. Ana María Ordóñez PuentesAgencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado
Ms. María Camila Rincón EscobarAgencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado
Ms. Angélica PerdomoAgencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado
Mr. Nicolás Palau van HissenhovenMinisterio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo
Mr. Juan Diego Díaz EcheverriMinisterio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo
Mr. Javier GarcíaAgencia Nacional de Minería

Court Reporters :
Mr. Dante Rinaldi D-R Esteno
Mr. David Kasdan Worldwide Reporting, LLP
Mr. Randy Salzman Worldwide Reporting, LLP
Interpreters :
Mr. Daniel Giglio
Mr. Charles Roberts
Mr. Luis Eduardo Arango

61.
During the Hearing, the following persons were examined:

On behalf of the Claimants :
Witnesses:
Mr. Gary Nagle Glencore International A.G.
Mr. Mark McManus C.I. Prodeco S.A.
Experts:
Mr. Pablo T. Spiller Compass Lexecon
Mr. Santiago Dellepiane Compass Lexecon
Mr. Mark Sheiness Compass Lexecon
Mr. Arun Parmar Compass Lexecon
On behalf of the Respondent :
Witnesses:
Mr. Oscar Paredes ZapataServicio Geológico Colombiano
Ms. Soraya Vargas PulidoContraloría General de la República de Colombia
Experts:
Mr. Frank Graves The Brattle Group
Mr. Florin Dorobantu The Brattle Group
Mr. Marty Turrin The Brattle Group
Mr. Peter Cahill The Brattle Group
Mr. John Dean JD Energy, Inc.
Mr. Landy Stinnet FGM Consulting Group, Inc.
Tribunal witnesses :
Mr. Hernán Martínez Torres Former Minister of Mines

62.
On 8 June 2018, the Tribunal circulated a number of questions to the Parties and invited them to indicate any agreements that they might have reached concerning the submission of the post-hearing briefs. The Parties informed the Tribunal of their agreements concerning post-hearing briefs and costs submissions on 26 June 2018. In the same communication, the Parties further agreed that "the Award may be issued only in English, provided that an official Spanish translation is delivered to the parties a few months later."
63.
On 31 July 2018, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 6 containing its full decision and reasoning on the admissibility of (i) the technical report identified by Claimants in their email of 11 May 2018; (ii) the FGN Documents and (iii) the Annex A Documents, as advanced in the Tribunal's communication to the Parties of 18 May 2018.
64.
On 8 August 2018, the Parties filed a single round of simultaneous post-hearing briefs together with their respective Legal Authorities RL-187 through RL-236 and CL-151 through CL-173.
65.
Further to the Tribunal's confirmation of its costs instructions, the Parties submitted a new agreement on the parameters of the costs submissions on 18 and 19 September 2018, and filed their respective costs submissions on 24 September 2018.
66.
On 7 March 2019, the Tribunal asked Claimants to provide further information in the interest of completeness and indicated when Respondent should file any comments it might have to the data provided by Claimants. Claimants filed the requested information on 14 March 2019.
67.
Further to the Parties' agreement of 26 June 2018 concerning, inter alia, the language of the Award and to the Parties' respective communications of 16 July 2019 noting their diverging interpretations thereof, on 30 July 2019, the Tribunal decided that the Parties' agreement of 26 June 2018 had superseded the relevant provision in Procedural Order No. 1, such that the Award would be rendered in English only and the Tribunal would request that the Centre prepare and deliver to the Parties an official Spanish translation. The Tribunal clarified that "[f]or all intents and purposes under the ICSID Convention and Rules, the date of dispatch of the certified copies of the Award in English shall be the date when the Award is deemed to have been rendered." On 15 August 2019, the Tribunal declared the proceeding closed pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 38(1).

(2) Certain Procedural Incidents

(2.1) PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2

A. The Road to PO No. 2

Submission of Respondent's Counter-Memorial

Criminal Complaint

B. The Decisions in PO No. 2

The Tribunal's Rationale for Excluding the Disputed Documents

C. The Consequences of PO No. 2

D. Parties' Observations on PO No. 2

(2.2) PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 3

(2.3) PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 4

A. The Road to PO No. 4

B. The Decision in PO No. 4

C. The Consequences of PO No. 4

(2.4) PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 6

A. The Road to PO No. 6

B. The Decision in PO No. 6

C. The Consequences of PO No. 6

III. CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS

(1) The Mining Contract : Execution, Performance and Amendments

A. 1989: Execution of the Mining Contract

B. 1991-2002: First, Second, Third and Fourth Amendment

First Amendment

Second Amendment

Third Amendment

Fourth Amendment

C. 2002-2004: The 2003 PTI and start of production

D. 2004: Fifth Amendment

The Contracting Committee

Fifth Amendment

E. 2005: Sixth Amendment

Acquisition of Carbones de la Jagua S.A.

Sixth Amendment

Railway

F. 2006: The 2006 PTI

G. 2007: Seventh Amendment

(2) The Eighth Amendment : Preliminary Steps

A. May 2008: Prodeco's First Approach

Ingeominas' reaction

B. July 2008: Prodeco's second approach

C. July 2008 - April 2009: The Dispute over the Definitive Price

No negative inference

Prodeco unilaterally construes the Mining Contract

Ingeominas' Requerimiento bajo apremio de caducidad

D. November 2008: Annual PTI for 2009

E. March 2009: Sale of Prodeco to Xstrata

(3) The 3ha Contract

A. November 2006: A Coveted Concession Contract

Ingeominas backtracks and awards the 3ha Contract

B. August 2008 - November 2008: Prodeco Complains to Authorities

Execution of the 3ha Contract

C. May 2009: CDJ Buys the 3ha Contract

Approval by Ingeominas

Payment of the purchase price

D. May 2011: Further Developments

(4) The Eighth Amendment: Negotiations

A. May 2009: The Commitment to Negotiate

B. June - November 2009: Negotiations

a. The Meeting of the Consejo Directivo of 1 June 2009

b. Negotiations Start

c. The Meeting of the Consejo Directivo of 27 July 2009

d. Continuation of the Negotiations

e. Prodeco Submits an NPV Model

Analysis by Ingeominas

f. The Meeting of the Consejo Directivo of 26 October 2009

g. Second Extension of the Commitment to Negotiate

Additional NPV Information

Prodeco’s Revised Proposal

The Meeting of 17 November 2009

Further Analyses

h. The Meeting of the Consejo Directivo of 23 November 2009

i. Third Extension of the Commitment to Negotiate

(5) The Eighth Amendment : Execution

A. December 2009: Execution of the Initial Version

B. The Meeting of the Consejo Directivo of 10 December 2009

C. December 2009: Ingeominas Denies Registration at the Mining Registry

D. January 2010: Execution of the Eighth Amendment

E. Content of the Eighth Amendment

Considerandos

Clauses260

Transition Period