1. I concur with my distinguished colleagues in several issues discussed in the Award. I join the majority on the general approach adopted on the applicable law and the standard of interpretation. UnfOltunately, I am unable to join their conclusions on the interpretation of the evidence produced in this case regarding Venezuela's consent to Ie SID arbitration under Alticle 22 of the Investment Law.

2. I agree with my fellow arbitrators that the text of Article 22 allows more than one interpretation and that, by itself, it is insufficient to determine whether the Respondent provided its consent to ICSID arbitration with the Claimant.

3. I do not share the fmding of other tribunals that "consent should be expressed in a manner that leaves no doubt".1 Such a requirement would in practical terms limit evidence of consent exclusively to the wording of the text and appears in principle inconsistent with the views of many other tribunals, including those acting in Mobil and Cemex and related to the interpretation of the very same Article 22 of the Investment Law?

4. I am of the view that an offer of consent as the one provided in Article 22 of the Investment Law must be interpreted neither restrictively nor expansively, but rather objectively and in good faith, as stated by the tribunal in Spp.3 Where the words of the text may be ambiguous in order to detennine the intention of the depositing State, the Tribunal may look beyond into the context and the circumstances in which they were formulated.