1. First of all, this dispute is a very complex case of investment in the Peruvian financial sector, which has been ongoing for about three years. Regardless of my recognition of and respect for my renowned colleagues and upon a serious and responsible analysis, I could not find a common position on how my colleagues have construed the facts and the law to dismiss Claimant’s complaint about Peru’s liability for compliance with international obligations under the Bilateral Investment Treaty executed between the Republic of Peru and the Republic of France (hereinafter, indistinctively, APPRI).
2. Pursuant to Article 48(4) of the ICSID Convention, I hereby issue a dissenting opinion on the merits, which is herein detailed and grounded. Notwithstanding, I agree with the decision on jurisdiction included in the Award.
3. Indeed, I disagree with all the answers from my colleagues as regards the analysis and weighing of the facts, as well as the appraisal of documentary and testimonial evidence. Not only because I believe they have misread and misunderstood the facts in terms of banking and monetary regulation, and they failed to understand the auditing methods and the effects of the Respondent’s failure to submit the evidence required by the Tribunal, but also because they have failed to state the grounds for putting aside equally important and relevant documentary and testimonial evidence questioning the essence of the Respondent’s arguments in my colleagues’ conclusions, with a view to disregard the elements that amount to violations of the standards of Fair and Equitable Treatment and National Treatment.