1. To dissent from the award agreed upon and masterly written by such Eminent Jurists constituting the Majority of the present Tribunal is not a decision that can be lightly taken. It is not made easier by the fact that the dissent is not limited to the evaluation of a particular fact or the interpretation of this or that particular rule of law. Indeed the diversions cover altogether the perception of the facts of the present dispute and the evaluation of the whole relationship that tied the Claimants and the Respondent, as well as, necessarily and as a result, the identification and the application of the appropriate rule of the law.
2. The starting point of the dissent consists in the perception of the facts. This is due, in my opinion, to the method of approach to these facts; to conceive and evaluate each and every fact as such, in isolation of other facts of the case, as opted for by the Majority Award, or rather evaluate the whole relationship that developed between the parties in the light of the multiplicity of facts forming sequences of their overall relationship. The method of approaching the facts does not constitute, fiom my point of view, an academic speculation since it is the only overall review of the intricate facts of the case that can best reveal the reality about the effective conduct of the parties during their relationship that took place over the years.