By letter dated July 8, 2014, the Tribunal directed Claimant and Respondent (the “Parties”) to jointly invite the Government of the United States of America (the “USG”), as a non-disputing party, to comment on the issues of interpretation in dispute between the Parties in relation to proceedings pursuant to Article 10.20(4) of the Peru-United States Trade Promotion Agreement (the “Treaty”). In addition, the Tribunal attached to its July 8, 2014 letter an article entitled “The Use of Preliminary Objections in ICSID Annulment Proceedings,” by Bernardo M. Cremades Roman, published on September 4, 2013 on the Kluwer Website Blog (the “Cremades Article”), and invited the Parties’ comments on the Cremades Article at the same time that they would comment on the submission of the USG.

Thereafter, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 2 dated July 31, 2014 (“P.O. No. 2”) setting a deadline for the Parties to provide comments on any submission of the USG. On August 21, 2014, the USG requested a short extension of time, to September 10, 2014, to provide its comments pursuant to the invitation of the parties and the Tribunal, and the extension was granted. On September 10, 2014, the USG submitted it comments as a non-disputing party regarding the interpretation of Article 10.20(4) of the Treaty (the “USG’s Submission”). Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 3 of P.O. No. 2, Claimant hereby provides its comments concerning the USG’s Submission and the Cremades Article.

In summary, and as set forth more fully below, the USG supports Claimant’s interpretation of Article 10.20(4) in every respect. Most importantly, the USG categorically states that objections to the Tribunal’s competence fall outside of the scope of this Article. Accordingly, the Treaty does not require the Tribunal to entertain such objections in the Article 10.20(4) phase of this arbitration. The USG’s interpretation of the scope of Article 10.20(4) objections squarely contradicts Respondent’s interpretation.