(I) Introduction 

(A) By Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Tribunal’s First Procedural Order dated 29 November 2012, the Parties agreed to refer their respective requests for document production, if disputed between the applicant and responding parties to such requests, to the decision of the Tribunal within these arbitration proceedings in accordance with the procedural timetable fixed by the First Procedural Order. 

(B) By Paragraph 15.1 of the First Procedural Order, the Parties agreed that, in deciding such disputes, the Tribunal may take account of Articles 3 and 9 of the International Bar Association’s Rules on the Taking of Evidence 2010 (the “IBA Rules”) as an additional general guide to the exercise of its discretion under Article 41(2) of the ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules forming part of the Parties’ arbitration agreement. 

(C) Pursuant to Paragraph 14.2.7(v) of the First Procedural Order, the Claimants and the Respondent submitted to the Tribunal on 15 March 2013 disputes under their respective Schedules for document production for decision by the Tribunal, such decision to be issued on 29 March 2013 in accordance with the procedural timetable fixed by Paragraph 14.2.7(vi) of the First Procedural Order. 

(D) The Claimants’ Schedule with its numbered requests is attached to this order marked “Appendix A”; and the Respondent’s Schedule with its numbered requests is attached to this order marked “Appendix B”. 

(E) By letter dated 18 March 2013, the Claimants confirmed that no privileged document was responsive to the Respondent’s requests numbered 3, 6, 7 and 14 in the Respondent’s Schedule and that, accordingly, the Claimants were not withholding any document so requested by the Respondent on the ground of privilege (or otherwise). 

(F) By letter dated 20 March 2013, the Respondent made further submissions relating to (i) alleged inaccuracies in the Claimants’ representations of the Parties’ understandings regarding the Claimants’ requests for document production (as recorded in the Claimants’ Schedule); and (ii) alleged inaccuracies in the Claimants’ representations of the Parties’ discussions regarding the “deliberative process privilege” invoked by the Respondent (as also recorded in the Claimants’ Schedule).