brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
2.32. In its Post-Hearing Submissions, as at <strong>the</strong> Hearing, <strong>the</strong> Claimant presented <strong>the</strong> relevant<br />
measure as a “practice” covering both an earlier period of time when CAFTA<br />
did not apply (ei<strong>the</strong>r pre-December 2007 or even pre-March 2006) and a later period<br />
of time when it did apply to <strong>the</strong> Claimant, namely, as a continuing course of conduct<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Respondent that existed before and after <strong>the</strong> Claimant‟s change of nationality<br />
on 13 December 2007:<br />
―The measure at issue as consistently identified in Claimant‘s pleadings is El Salvador‘s<br />
practice of withholding permits necessary for metallic mining: This measure is<br />
a continuing course of conduct by Respondent which may have begun before CAFTA<br />
became applicable to Claimant, but continued <strong>the</strong>reafter (indeed, to this very day)<br />
and which Claimant became aware of at <strong>the</strong> earliest in March 2008, when El Salvador‘s<br />
President first confirmed <strong>the</strong> existence of a de facto mining ban.‖ 24<br />
2.33. As regards <strong>the</strong> date when <strong>the</strong> Parties‟ dispute arose, <strong>the</strong> Claimant alleges that it arose<br />
only in March 2008 and not before, i.e. it came into existence as a continuing or<br />
composite act after <strong>the</strong> change in <strong>the</strong> Claimant‟s nationality in December 2007:<br />
“The act supporting Pac Rim Cayman's claims of breach resulting in loss or damage<br />
is Respondent's de facto ban on mining as announced by President Saca in March<br />
2008. . . . As relevant to Respondent's abuse of process argument, since <strong>the</strong> act giving<br />
rise to <strong>the</strong> dispute did not occur until March 2008 or, alternatively, only became<br />
recognizable as a continuing or composite act in breach of CAFTA obligations at<br />
that time, Pac Rim Cayman's domestication to Nevada in December 2007 could not<br />
have been ―a retrospective gaming of <strong>the</strong> system to gain jurisdiction for an existing<br />
dispute.” 25<br />
2.34. The Tribunal considers that <strong>the</strong> Claimant‟s pleaded case had developed significantly<br />
from its early pleadings by <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> Hearing, as not infrequently happens during<br />
a complicated arbitration. This development has, however, created certain difficulties<br />
for <strong>the</strong> Tribunal, to which it is necessary to return below.<br />
24<br />
25<br />
The Claimant‟s Post-Hearing Submissions, § 3.<br />
Jurisdiction Counter-Memorial, § 376. Emphasis by <strong>the</strong> Claimant. See also § 11 of <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s Post-<br />
Hearing Submissions.<br />
Part 2 – Page 10