1.

The submissions by the External Advisors must be allowed on the basis of the
applicable laws
1. Article 9.19 (2) of the CEPTA permits the non-disputing parties for filing oral and
written submissions before the tribunal for the interpretation of the Agreement.
Article 41 of the ICSID Additional Facility rules states that the tribunal may when it
deems necessary call upon parties to produce documents, witnesses and experts. In
addition to this, rule 37 of the ICSID Convention allows the tribunal to accept the
third party briefs after consultation with both the parties. This rule explicitly provide
for conditions which shall be satisfied for a valid third party submission.

1.1The Submissions by External Advisors Addresses Significant Public Interest and

Aids the Tribunal
 In the Methanex case, The judgement had relied on Article 15 (1) of the UNCITRAL
Rules that gives the tribunal the power to conduct the arbitration in a manner that it
deems suitable. This has been reaffirmed in the UPS case
 The factors and the conditions laid down by the tribunal therein have now been
codified as part of Article 41 of the Additional Facilities Rules, 2006.
1.2The Application Concerns a Matter of Public Interest
 the similarity of the language of Article 15(1) of the UNCITRAL Rules with Article
35 of the Additional Facilities Rules, 2006 indicating the applicability of the decision
in the Methanox case in the present matter.
 The Respondent refers to the decision of the tribunal in the case of World Duty Free
v. Kenya wherein the tribunal had considered whether the acts of bribery prevented
the claimant from claiming a breach of the contractual obligations.
1.3The Application Seeks to Assist the Tribunal
2. tribunal in the case of Rumeli v. Kazakhstan wherein the tribunal had established that
the investments made in violation of the domestic laws are outside the guarantees of
the relevant agreement.
3. Further, the tribunal in the case of Hamester v. Ghana had held that the investments
made in the violation of the national and international policy of good faith or of host
state laws are not protected by the BIT.
1.4CBFI Application is not Made in Wider Public Interest
 In the case of Apotex inc. v. Government of USA had dismissed the non-disputing
party application filed by the Study Centre of Sustainable Finance since they failed to
identity any wider public interest.
1.5CBFI Submissions do not Meet the Eligibility Criteria
in the case of Apotex Holding inc and Apotex Ltd. v. United States of Amercia had rejected
the application for filing of an amicus submission by a Canadian lawyer on the grounds that
the lawyer had certain connections with the Respondent.
Article 9.19 (2) of the CEPTA requires that the non-disputing party shall disclose any
affiliation, direct or indirect, with any disputing party; and identify any person, government
or other entity that has provided, or will provide, any financial or other assistance in
preparing the submission.