(a) A letter from counsel for the Respondent, dated 29 November 2013;
(b) A letter from Mr. Graciano Nyaguse, dated 29 November 2013;
(c) A report prepared by Mr. Nyaguse on the negotiations that occurred between 26th and 30th November 1990, between Germany and Zimbabwe in regard to the Germany-Zimbabwe BIT ("Zimbabwe’s 1990 Report") (RLEX-31(a));
(d) a letter from Mr. Klaus-Peter Brandes of the German Embassy in Harare to Mrs. Alice Nyazika of Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated 2 December 1993 (RLEX-31(b));
(e) a letter from Mr. Nyaguse to Mr. Klaus-Peter Brandes of the German Embassy in Harare, dated 3 January 1980 (but purportedly written in early 1994) (RLEX-31(c));
(f) a letter from Mr. Nyaguse to the German Embassy in Harare, dated 1 September 1994 (RLEX-31(d));
(g) a letter from Mr. Klaus-Peter Brandes of the German Embassy in Harare to Mr. Nyaguse, dated 9 September 1994 (RLEX-31(e));
(h) a letter from Mr. Nyaguse to Mr. Klaus-Peter Brandes of the German Embassy in Harare, dated 24 March 1995 (RLEX-31(f)); and
(i) a Verbal Note from the German Embassy in Harare to the Zimbabwe Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated 30 March 1995 (RLEX-31(g)).
"[T]he Tribunal, informed by the clear terms of Procedural Order Number 9, will determine, during its deliberations, what needs to be redacted, what should be redacted, and what should remain as being admissible. This is a situation where the Parties are invited to trust the Tribunal, to trust the arbitrators to act in accordance with their conscience.... So, both Skeletons are admitted into the record provisionally, subject to what I have explained." (Day 1, pp. 22-23)
"The Arbitral Tribunals’ resolution of matters raised by Claimants in connection with the transcript will require an effort on the part of the Arbitral Tribunals conceptually contiguous to that of deciding on redactions to final form of Respondent’s Skeleton Argument as submitted on 21 October 2013. It would also seem logical to allow the Parties to make Post-Hearing Submissions knowing exactly what interpretation of Procedural order No.9 the Arbitral Tribunals deem acceptance. Respondent believes that it would also be to the benefit of the case and the Arbitral Tribunals to have Post-Hearing Submissions only contain material not subject to any pending questions of admissibility. On the contrary, the Arbitral Tribunals would have to review Skeleton Arguments and Post-Hearing Submissions twice, once for admission of their contents and then on their merits."
"[to redact from the Skeleton those sentences, those passages, which, because of Procedural order Number 9, should be declared as inadmissible] was going to be an impossible task to be performed thoroughly and in a fulsome way prior to 2:15 this afternoon [Monday 28 October 2014]."
"... The Respondent’s true intent is to achieve a reconsideration of PO No. 9 by other means in the hope that it may have admitted into argument (via the Skeleton Argument) matters which it has not pleaded and which were therefore ruled by PO No. 9 to be inadmissible. This is an unfair and inefficient manner in which to conduct arbitration. Indeed there is no provision under the ICSID arbitration rules for parties to seek interpretation of the procedural orders of the Tribunals.
In the circumstances, the Claimants request that the extension for the time in which the Parties have to file their submission is 60 days from the date on which the Parties receive the final version of the Hearing Transcripts."
"There was no audit carried out in 2010 (TB-016, p. 6(1)(i)). There was an agreement between the two main political parties that there should be a Land Audit Commission. The Commission was never established and the funds were not available to conduct the audit.
The other reports requested by the Claimants are not available and most are unknown to the Ministry of Lands e.g. (1)(a) to (1)(h) with the exception of the Utete Report (1)(c) which appears in the form submitted to the Claimants and the 2008 Report produced by the Ministry of Lands (1)(f)."
"15.... The Respondent to these ICSID proceedings is the State of Zimbabwe, not the Ministry of Lands. Therefore it is irrelevant that some of the land audits may be ‘unknown’ to the Ministry of Lands. In any event, the Respondent’s prior responses suggest that it is aware of all of the pre-2010 land audits and considers that they exist (see paras 5 to 7 and 11 to 12 above). Further, the Respondent in its 29 November 2013 submissions does not state why the pre-2010 land audits are not available. However, it is noteworthy that the Respondent does not assert any legal impediment or privilege in regard to the land audits. Therefore there is no legitimate reason as to why they should not be provided by the Respondent (see the Claimants’ letter of 11 May 2011, regarding legal privilege)."
(a) The parties' List 1 editorial corrections to the Hearing transcript as set out in Annex A to this Procedural Order are approved and adopted;
(b) The Tribunals' decisions in respect of the disputed List 2 editorial corrections to the Hearing transcript are recorded in Annex B to this Procedural Order;
(c) The Tribunals' decisions in respect of the Claimants' proposed substantive redactions to the Hearing transcript are recorded in Annex C to this Procedural Order;
(d) The transcript of the Hearing shall be corrected according to the Tribunals' decisions recorded at paragraphs 42(a)-(c) of this Procedural Order and its Annexes and the corrected transcript shall be the official transcript of the Hearing in these proceedings;
(e) The additional information and documents provided by the Respondent in connection with Zimbabwe's land audits and the travaux préparatoires for the Germany-Zimbabwe BIT shall be placed on the record and be treated consistent with the Tribunals' decisions set out at paragraphs 28 and 34 above;
(f) The parties shall file their Post-Hearing Briefs within 60 days from receipt of the corrected Hearing transcript;
(g) The parties may file a brief statement with the Tribunals within 30 days from receipt of the other party's Post-Hearing Submission identifying any inadmissible material contained in that Submission; and
(h) The Respondent's request for an extension of time for the filing of its Post-Hearing Submission based on the circulation of a redacted version of the Respondent's Skeleton Argument is denied.
Already registered ?