Dear Mr. Secretary General:

Pursuant to Article 12(1)(b) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the Republic of Ecuador, the Respondent in the above-referenced arbitration, respectfully requests that in your capacity as the parties’ jointly designated appointing authority, you sustain its challenge to the co-arbitrator appointed by Claimant, Mr. Guido Santiago Tawil.

On September 30, 2011, the Respondent received Claimant Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International’s Notice of Arbitration (dated September 21) asserting claims premised on the Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Ecuador Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (the “Ecuador-U.S. BIT”). On October 12, the Respondent physically received a letter dated October 7 from Claimant’s counsel, King & Spalding, appointing Mr. Tawil as a co-arbitrator.1 In that same letter, King & Spalding proposed that the Permanent Court of Arbitration be designated as the appointing authority.2 On October 22, Respondent notified Claimant and Mr. Tawil by letter of its challenge to the latter’s appointment, in accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.3

The Respondent’s challenge is based on the multiple disclosures made by Mr. Tawil in his October 13 letter,4 as well as on other factors specified below, all of which constitute facts that give rise to justifiable doubts on Respondent’s part as to the appointed arbitrator’s impartiality and independence. The Respondent asked that Claimant agree to its challenge and/or that Mr. Tawil withdraw voluntarily from his office, in accordance with Article 11(3) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. By letter dated October 25, Mr. Tawil declined to withdraw.5 And through King & Spalding’s letter of November 4, Claimant declined to accede in the challenge.6