brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

6.72. As to the amount of such costs, the Respondent submits the following figures:
The Respondent’s Statement of Costs
Attorneys‟ fees
US$3,610,651.75
Other Expenses
UD$447,068.21
Amounts paid or due to ICSID US$250,000.00
TOTAL:
US$4,307,719.96
6.73. The Respondent notes that its own claim for attorneys' fees for this arbitration total
US$3,610,651.75 and that the Claimant's attorneys‟ fees total US$4,147,010.00 for
the two rounds of objections: a significant difference of US$536,358.25.
6.74. The Respondent submits that, given that the Respondent had to carry the burden of
proof for its two sets of objections, there is no reason that the Claimant's legal fees
should be higher than the Respondent‟s legal fees. Nevertheless, the Respondent
submits that the Claimant's higher legal fees are evidence that the amount of legal
fees incurred by the Respondent is a reasonable amount for the Tribunal to include
in its award as compensation for the Respondent‟s legal costs.
(05) The Claimant’s Response
6.75. The Claimant responds that the Respondent's claim for costs is remarkable in that
nowhere does it identify a legal rule for the Tribunal to apply in deciding how to allocate
the costs of this arbitration to date; that, rather than argue any relevant legal
points of law, the Respondent merely repeats arguments underlying its jurisdictional
objections and the baseless accusation that the Claimant has not acted “honestly and
in good faith”; that if its objections are well-founded (which they are not), that it
should then automatically be entitled to have the Claimant “bear all the costs and
expenses incurred by El Salvador in this arbitration.” The Claimant argues that the
Respondent cites no authority for this proposition, because there is none in CAFTA,
the ICSID Convention or in any other source of law applicable to this international
arbitration.
Part 6 - Page 24