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.
Claimant, it came to light only in March 2008 when President Saca publicly acknowledged<br />
its existence. 112<br />
3.25. The Claimant contends that <strong>the</strong> de facto mining ban constitutes <strong>the</strong> breach of CAF-<br />
TA pleaded by <strong>the</strong> Claimant; and, accordingly, <strong>the</strong> relevant date on which Claimant<br />
first knew or should have known that <strong>the</strong> ban had been implemented by <strong>the</strong> Respondent,<br />
causing loss to <strong>the</strong> Claimant, was March 2008. 113 According to <strong>the</strong> Claimant,<br />
<strong>the</strong> significance of President Saca‟s revelation in March 2008 is illustrated by <strong>the</strong><br />
impact on <strong>the</strong> share price of <strong>the</strong> Claimant‟s parent company (Pacific Rim), which<br />
dropped precipitously upon <strong>the</strong> President‟s announcement of <strong>the</strong> alleged de facto<br />
mining ban and has never since recovered, a pattern materially different from o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
gold stocks. 114<br />
3.26. The Claimant contends that President Saca´s speech in March 2008 may have<br />
marked ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> actual imposition of <strong>the</strong> ban or confirmed a practice that pre-dated<br />
his announcement. In any case, that ban, as it relates to <strong>the</strong> Claimant, is a measure<br />
covered by CAFTA. In <strong>the</strong> first case, it would be a measure that took place both after<br />
CAFTA´s entry into force in March 2006 and <strong>the</strong> Claimant‟s change of nationality<br />
in December 2007. In <strong>the</strong> second case, it would be a continuing practice that continued<br />
both after CAFTA´s entry into force and <strong>the</strong> Claimant´s change of nationality.<br />
Moreover, in this last case, <strong>the</strong> Claimant submits that <strong>the</strong> de facto ban should be<br />
considered as a continuing or composite measure, 115 as distinct from a completed act<br />
with continuing effects. 116<br />
3.27. According to <strong>the</strong> Claimant, acts and omissions that occurred before December 2007<br />
should only be taken into account by this Tribunal “for purposes of <strong>under</strong>standing<br />
<strong>the</strong> background, <strong>the</strong> causes or scope of <strong>the</strong> violations of CAFTA that occurred after<br />
entry into force.” 117<br />
112<br />
113<br />
114<br />
115<br />
116<br />
117<br />
Jurisdiction Rejoinder, § 244.<br />
Jurisdiction Rejoinder, § 236.<br />
Jurisdiction Rejoinder, §§ 249-251.<br />
Claimant‟s Post-Hearing Submissions, §§ 29-31.<br />
Jurisdiction Counter-Memoriall, § 224-244; Hearing D1.221-223.<br />
Claimant´s Post-Hearing Submissions § 21, citing Société Générale v. Dominican Republic, LCIA Case<br />
No. UN 7927, Award on Preliminary Objections on Jurisdiction, 19 September 2008, § 87.<br />
Part 3 - Page 8