1. Pursuant to paragraph 13 of the Agreement of the Parties on Procedural Matters, Respondent Uruguay respectfully submits this Reply to the 23 January 2012 Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction presented by Claimants Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A.. 

2. Nothing Claimants argue in their Counter-Memorial can or does change any of the conclusions presented in Uruguay’s Memorial. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction for all the reasons previously stated, namely: 

• Claimants did not satisfy Article 10’s requirement that they litigate this BIT dispute in Uruguayan courts for at least 18 months before instituting arbitration; 

• The most-favoured nation (“MFN”) clause of the Uruguay-Switzerland BIT does not apply to dispute resolution, and therefore does not excuse Claimants’ failure to comply with Article 10; 

• Article 2 removes public health measures from the scope of the substantive protections the BIT otherwise accords investors; and 

• Because they impede Uruguay’s economic development, Claimants’ activities do not constitute an “investment” within the meaning of the ICSID Convention. 

Rather than undermining these conclusions, Claimants’ Counter-Memorial in many respects only serves to highlight the reasons Uruguay is correct.