I. INTRODUCTION

1. Under the Investment Law of El Salvador, a foreign investor must comply with all the provisions of the laws of El Salvador. In particular, investments related to minerals located in the subsoil are governed by the Mining Law.

2. According to Article 35 of the Mining Law, minerals located in the subsoil belong to the State until they are extracted pursuant to a mining exploitation concession. It is undisputed that Claimant never received a concession to exploit the minerals in the ground. Therefore, the State was and remains the owner of those minerals.

3. Claimant alleged at the beginning of this arbitration that it had a "perfected right" to an exploitation concession, i.e., that it had met all the requirements to obtain the concession except for the environmental permit, which it claimed El Salvador had unjustifiably failed to grant. During the preliminary objections phase, Claimant promised that, if this proceeding were to reach the merits phase, it would present expert and factual evidence proving to the Tribunal that it had indeed met all the legal requirements to obtain the concession. 

4. Yet more than four years after making that promise, Claimant has failed to prove that it had a "perfected right" to such a concession. On the contrary, Claimant has been forced to admit that it neither owned nor had the required authorization for the land in the area requested for the concession. Claimant has also been forced to admit that it never completed the required Feasibility Study. Having admitted that it did not satisfy the legal requirements to have a "perfected right" to a concession, Claimant now asserts in its Reply that this Tribunal does not need to decide whether Claimant actually met the requirements for the concession.