1. Introduction: This Partial Award addresses the Parties’ dispute concerning the legal interpretation and legal effect of the 1995 Settlement Agreement made between the Second Claimant (“TexPet”) and the Respondent as its signatory parties, to which the First Claimant (“Chevron”) was not a signatory Party. For ease of reference, a full copy of the 1995 Settlement Agreement in its original Spanish version is appended to and forms part of this Partial Award (Appendix 1). Given the original language of this Partial Award, for convenience only, references are made below to its English translation, save where otherwise indicated.

2. Given the status of this Partial Award as the fifth award made in these arbitration proceedings, it serves no purpose here re-stating the formal parts set out in the Tribunal’s earlier awards; and for simplicity’s sake, the Tribunal here incorporates by reference Part I of its Third Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 21 February 2012.

3. Procedure: In summary, applying a ‘prima facie’ standard appropriate to issues of jurisdiction, the Tribunal decided in that Third Interim Award that the Claimants’ interpretation of the 1995 Settlement Agreement, albeit strongly disputed by the Respondent, was at least “serious”; but the Tribunal did not otherwise there finally decide on the interpretation or effect of the 1995 Settlement Agreement one way or the other. Instead the Tribunal decided, given that both were mixed questions relevant to the Respondent’s disputed jurisdictional objections under Article VI(1)(a) of the BIT and to the merits of Chevron’s disputed claims, to join the Respondent’s jurisdictional objection to the merits of those claims under Article 21(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.