brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

change of nationality.” The Claimant contends that the Respondent persisted in its
allegations that the Claimant failed to disclose its change in nationality, even as
it was pointed out to the Respondent that the Claimant had duly notified the Respondent‟s
Government of the Claimant‟s domestication to Nevada , USA, long before
the commencement of this ICSID arbitration; and that the change in nationality
from that of the Cayman Islands to that of the USA was again disclosed in the exhibits
to the Claimant‟s Notice of Arbitration.
6.19. At the Hearing, so the Claimant submits, the Respondent (having repeatedly accused
the Claimant of “bad faith,” “concealment,” and “deceit”) effectively conceded that
there was no evidence to support any of these inflammatory allegations. Instead, the
Respondent was reduced to arguing that the Respondent did not have to show any
bad faith on the part of the Claimant, because bad faith is “inherent in this type of
abuse [of process].” That assertion, so the Claimant contends, is without any merit as
a matter of international law (given that good faith is always to be presumed); but,
more important for present purposes is the fact that the Respondent was forced to
make this concession at all. The Claimant submits that the Respondent's attempt to
“imply” bad faith into the Claimant's conduct is illustrative of its tendency to make
serious allegations against the Claimant that are either contradicted by the record or
that turn out to be completely unsupported.
6.20. The Claimant submits that many of the tactics employed by the Respondent
throughout this case, for example the tendency to offer unacceptably distorted assertions
of fact and law; to make accusations and insinuations that were utterly without
support and to hold back various allegations or information until the last minute in
an effort to ambush the Claimant, were dramatically on display in the proffered testimony
of the Respondent's own counsel, Mr Parada. The Claimant contends that
Mr Parada‟s witness statement was offered only after the written phase for the Respondent's
jurisdictional objections was closed and even though the Respondent
maintained that the “information” contained in his testimony was the basis for the
Respondent's documentary and other requests made in September 2010.
6.21. The Claimant submits that, as the Respondent's counsel acknowledged as he began
his direct examination of Mr Parada, “it's quite extraordinary for a counsel for a
Part 6 - Page 6