1. I dissent from the present Procedural Order Nº 28 because its underlying principles on the main procedural legal questions at issue, namely the rights concerning (i) the examination at the forthcoming hearing of individual Claimants and (ii) the examination by the Respondent at that hearing of its own witnesses and experts, are similar to those set forth in Procedural Order Nº 27 of 30 May 2014, an Order to which for reasons of principle I joined a detailed Statement of Dissent. 

2. Basically, the present Order is a continuation of the Majority’s views which inspire the previous one. Thus, the considerations developed in my Statement of Dissent to Procedural Order Nº 27 apply mutatis mutandis to the present one. I will therefore limit my considerations below to explain briefly my position with respect to some of the main specific decisions listed in the decisional part of Procedural Order Nº 28: