The arbitral tribunal shall decide which further written statements, in addition to the statement of claim and the statement of defence, shall be required from the parties or may be presented by them and shall fix the periods of time for communicating such statements.

The Arbitral Tribunal has,

…

1. 4. Fixed the procedural time table applicable until the issuing of the preliminary award as follows:

   • •  the Defendants will file a brief on the above referred preliminary issues by January 10, 1999 with all documents they are relying upon,

   • •  the Claimant will provide a reply within 45 days maximum from the receipt of the Defendant's brief, with all documents it is relying upon,

   • •  a hearing will then be held on March 10, 1999 in Paris.

2. 5. Contemplated a provisional time table for the continuation of the procedure in case the Tribunal would retain its jurisdiction as follows:

   • •  the Claimant may, within one month from the rendering of the preliminary award, revise its Statement of Claim dated November 11, 1998,

   • •  the Defendants will then have two months to reply starting either from the receipt of the revised brief or from the notification by the Claimant that no revised brief will be filed,

   • •  the Claimant will submit a rebuttal to the reply of the Defendants within one month from receipt of that reply,

   • •  the Defendants will then submit a rejoinder to the Claimant's memorial within one month from receipt of that rebuttal.

With all these written statements, the parties are entitled to provide any further documentary evidence;

A hearing will then be held within one month after receipt of the last brief.

Item 9: Pleadings

The Claimant shall re-serve on each member of the Tribunal copies of its Notice of Arbitration, its Statement of Claim of 3 December 1999 and accompanying schedule(s) as soon as practicable.

As regards service of further pleadings, as set out in their letter dated 29 June 2000 to the Tribunal, the parties agreed the following time-table:

Statement of Defence: 11 August 2000

Statement of Reply (if required): 28 August

Statement of Rejoinder (if required): 14 September

(The timing of any further written pleadings, under Articles 19, 20 and 22 of the [1976] UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules or otherwise, may be addressed at the Second Procedural Meeting or subsequent meetings).

…

The procedural time-table envisaged by the Tribunal at the meeting was subsequently modified at the request of the Disputing Parties, by further order of the Tribunal communicated by letter dated 10th October 2000 as follows:

1. (1)  16 October 2000: Further written submissions of non-state petitioners for “amicus curiae” status;

2. (2)  27 October 2000: Methanex and US written statements re (1);

3. (3)  10 November 2000: Mexico and Canada written submissions as Non-Disputing State Parties re Article 1128 of Chapter Eleven of NAFTA (“Participation by a Party”); and

4. (4)  22 November 2000: Methanex and US written submissions re (3) submissions from Mexico and Canada.

…

1. 131. … Article 22 [of the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules] is also relevant, as both parties remind the Tribunal. It has the power to decide whether further written statements, in addition to the statements of claim and defence, should be required from the parties or presented by them.

1. 5. Timetable for the Proceedings

2. 5.1  The timetable for the proceedings shall be as follows:

   1. (a)  10 February 2003

      The Claimant shall file its Statement of Claim, together with witness statements, expert reports and such other documentary evidence that it relies upon.

   2. (b)  10 March 2003

      The Respondent shall file: (i) comments on whether the proceeding should be separated into different phases (bifurcation); and (ii) notification of any objections to jurisdiction and admissibility.

   3. (c)  8 April 2003

      The Respondent shall file its definitive submissions on its objections (if any) to jurisdiction and admissibility.

   4. (d)  8 May 2003

      The Claimant shall file its submission in reply to the Respondent's objections (if any) to jurisdiction and admissibility and shall reply to the Respondent's comments on bifurcation.

   5. (e)  22 May 2003

      The Arbitral Tribunal shall decide whether the Respondent's objections to jurisdiction and/or admissibility will be resolved separately as preliminary matters or be joined to the merits. If the former, the deadlines which follow shall be vacated.

   6. (f)  9 June 2003

      The Respondent shall file its Statement of Defence together with witness statements, expert reports and such other documentary evidence that it relies upon.

   (p. 498)

   7. (g)  8 July 2003

      The Claimant shall file its Reply to the Respondent's Statement of Defence together with any responsive witness statements, expert reports and documentary evidence.

   8. (h)  8 August 2003

      The Respondent shall file its Rejoinder to the Claimant's Reply together with any responsive witness statements, expert reports and documentary evidence.

3. 5.2  At the latest following the conclusion of the written submissions referred to above, the Arbitral Tribunal shall fix dates for a status conference call with respect to the hearing and the possible exchange of post-hearing submissions, as well as possible submissions by other NAFTA Parties.

Having held the Pre-Hearing Conference in the Case on 17 December 1985 and taking into account the submissions of the Parties, the Tribunal decides as follows:

…

A  Pre-Hearing Conference was held in this case on February 28, 1983. The Chamber sets forth the following as the schedule for further proceedings:

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is granted until 1 June 1983 to file a Statement of Defence in this case.

11 April 1983: Claimants shall file a memorial on the question of whether OPIC is entitled to submit a claim in this case, including comments with respect to any laws governing insurance contracts which may be applicable. Claimants shall attach complete copies of the Contract of Insurance and the Settlement Agreement with OPIC. Claimants shall further file the documents and other written evidence on which they intend to rely, including affidavits of any experts and other witnesses, together with such summaries of evidence as they choose to submit.

10 June 1983: Respondents shall file the documents and other written evidence on which they intend to rely, including affidavits of any experts and other witnesses, together with such summaries of evidence as they choose to submit.

11 July 1983: Claimants shall file any rebuttal evidence they choose to submit in the light of Respondents’ submission.

9 September 1983: Respondents shall file any rebuttal evidence they choose to submit in the light of Claimants’ submissions.

7 October 1983: The parties shall file a list of witnesses, if any, through whom they intend to present oral evidence, pursuant to Article 25 of the Provisionally Adopted Tribunal Rules.

21–22 November 1983: The Parties are invited to appear at Parkweg 13, The Hague at 9.30 a.m. for the Hearing in this case.

1. 4. The Final Hearing was held on 9 and 10 October 1985. On 8 November 1985 Respondents submitted a Post-Hearing Memorial. This had been authorized by the Tribunal in view of the submission by Claimant on 30 September 1985 of its Counter-Memorial with extensive supporting documents the Farsi version of which, moreover, was not timely submitted.

The time for the Respondents to file any evidence in rebuttal is further extended to 15 February 1985.

In view of the fact that the simultaneous filing envisaged in the Order of 21 September 1984 has been derogated from, the Claimants are invited to inform the Tribunal within 3 weeks of the filing of Respondents’ rebuttals of any prejudice which may have resulted from the non-simultaneous filing.

On the basis of such information, the Tribunal will decide whether Claimants will be given an opportunity to comment on the rebuttals.

Each Party shall file with the Tribunal by 12 June 1986, copies of all written evidence on which it will seek to rely together with a list of all documentary evidence submitted by it in this Case and the location in the record (by tab or Exhibit number) of each such document. By the same date each Party may file a Hearing Memorial explaining the evidence and summarizing the issues in this case.

Each Party shall file by 12 September 1986 copies of any documentary evidence on which it will seek to rely in rebuttal of previously presented evidence together with a supplemental list of such rebuttal evidence and the location of each such document in the record.

In this context the Parties should bear in mind that the following consideration will apply once the Tribunal has scheduled a Hearing:

1. 1. No new documents may be introduced in evidence prior to the Hearing unless the Tribunal so permits and unless the request for their introduction is filed at least two months before the Hearing.

2. 2. At the Hearing, any Party is free to make any arguments it wishes, but new documents may not be introduced in evidence unless the Tribunal so permits, which permission will not normally be granted except for evidence in rebuttal of evidence introduced in the Hearing.

1. 1. Reference is made to the order dated 2 July 1986 extending the time limit for the Respondent to submit any further Statement or Brief until 8 September 1986, the submission filed by the Respondent on 25 September 1986 and the “Opposition To Respondent's Late Submission” filed on 30 September 1986 by the Agent of the United States.

2. 2. The Tribunal notes that notwithstanding its Order of 2 July 1986, and the Hearing in this Case scheduled for 7 October 1986, the Respondent filed on 25 September 1986 a voluminous submission styled “Rejoinder of Iran Carton Company.”

3. 3. At the Hearing on 7 October 1986, the Tribunal informed the Parties that it was prepared to consider the Respondent's late submission but that in order to avoid undue prejudice to the Claimant caused by the filing of such a voluminous submission so shortly before the (p. 500) Hearing date, it would permit the Claimant to submit its reply to this submission after the Hearing.

4. 4. The Claimant is accordingly invited to submit its reply by 21 November 1986.

1. 4 

   1. a. The Claimants shall file by 30 May 1987 a Hearing Memorial together with copies of all written evidence on which they will seek to rely, together with a list of all documentary evidence submitted by them in this Case and its location in the record (by tab or Exhibit number).

   2. b. The Respondent, the National Iranian Oil Company, shall by 30 May 1987 file a Hearing Memorial with respect to the Counter-claim together with copies of all written evidence on which it will seek to rely together with a list of all documentary evidence submitted by it in this case and the location in the record (by tab or Exhibit number) of each such document.

   3. c. The Respondents shall file by 30 September 1987 a Response to the Memorial and evidence, referred to under paragraph 4 a., and the Claimants shall file by the same date their Response to the Memorial and the evidence, referred to under paragraph 4 b.

   4. d. The Tribunal, by further Order, will invite each Party to submit simultaneously a Memorial containing only its Comments on the Memorials of the other party submitted pursuant to Para 4(c), together with any evidence in support of such comments.

1. 57. As noted in the discussion of the procedural history of this case, both Parties have submitted documents after the expiration of the filing deadlines established by the Tribunal's Order of 6 March 1986. At the Hearing, the Tribunal reserved its decision on the admissibility of these documents. The Tribunal now turns to an examination of this issue.

2. 58. The starting point of the analysis must be the [1983] Tribunal Rules themselves. There are four rules relevant to this determination. First, Articles 22 and 23 of the Rules provide authority for the Tribunal to establish deadlines for the submission of written submissions. In establishing such deadlines, however, the Tribunal must be mindful of Article 15, which requires that both Parties be treated with equality.

3. 59. Article 22 provides:

   The arbitral tribunal shall decide which further written statements, in addition to the statement of claim and the statement of defence, shall be required from the parties or may be presented by them and shall fix the periods of time for communicating such statements.

   Moreover, Article 28, paragraph 3, states:

   If one of the parties, duly invited to produce documentary evidence, fails to do so within the established period of time, without showing sufficient cause for such failure, the arbitral tribunal may make the award on the evidence before it.

4. 60. Taken together, these rules provide authority for the Tribunal to make and to enforce deadlines for the filing of written submissions, provided that the Parties are treated with equality. This limitation is important. Equality, a “fundamental principle of justice” implies that the Parties must have equal opportunity to make written submissions and to respond to each other's submissions. See Foremost Tehran, Inc. and Islamic Republic of Iran, Case Nos 37, 231 (Chamber One) (Order of 15 Sept 1983). The Tribunal “has repeatedly stated that no party shall submit any document only at the Hearing or so shortly before the Hearing that the other Party cannot respond to it without prejudice and in an appropriate way”, Sylvania Technical Systems, Inc. and Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No 180–64–1, (p. 501) p. 3–7 June 1985); Questech, Inc. and Ministry of National Defence of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No 191–59–1, p. 4 (25 Sept. 1985).

The Tribunal will decide whether to authorize posthearing submissions only at the end of the Hearing. In the Interest of the efficient conduct of the arbitration, the Tribunal will be reluctant to authorize such submissions unless they are clearly essential.

Each Party shall file simultaneously by 1 March 1988 with the Tribunal copies of any remaining written evidence on which it will seek to rely together with a list of all documentary evidence submitted by it in this Case and the location in the record (by tab or Exhibit number) of each such document. By the same date each Party may file a Hearing Memorial explaining the evidence and summarizing the issues in this Case.

Each Party shall file simultaneously by 1 June 1988 copies of any documentary evidence on which it will seek to rely in rebuttal of previously presented evidence together with a supplemental list of such rebuttal evidence and the location of each such document in the record.

On 30 November 1987 the Claimant filed a Request for an order authorizing the Parties in this Case to file simultaneous surrebuttals. In the Request it is stated that the Respondents’ rebuttal Memorial and Exhibits filed on 3 August 1987 contain new arguments and evidence. It is also stated that a round of surrebuttal pleadings would afford the Respondents a further opportunity to respond fully to Claimant's evidence and arguments.

It has been the established practice of the Tribunal to close the exchange of written pleadings after the submission of Memorials in Rebuttal. In order to secure equal treatment of the Parties and an orderly conduct of the proceedings, the Tribunal admits further written submissions close to the Hearing date only in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal finds no reason to allow a further round of submissions in the present Case. If any of the material filed by the Respondents on 3 August 1987 is found not to fall within the definition of rebuttal evidence, it will be ruled inadmissible and disregarded. The Claimant's request is therefore denied.

1. 26. Articles 22 and 28, paragraph 3, of the [1983] Tribunal Rules, taken together, provide authority for the Tribunal to establish and enforce deadlines for the filing of written submissions, provided that the parties are treated with equality. Fundamental principles of equality and fairness between the parties, possible prejudice to either party, as well as the orderly conduct of the proceedings, require that time limits be established and enforced. The Tribunal has therefore repeatedly stated that no party shall submit any document for the first time at the Hearing, or so shortly before the Hearing that the other party cannot respond to it in an appropriate way. In deciding whether, in a particular case, a late-filed submission is nevertheless admissible, the Tribunal considers the character and contents of the submission, its length, and the cause of delay. See Harris International Telecommunications, Inc., and The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Award No 323–409–1, paras 57 et seq. (2 Nov 1987).

1. 5. On 15 July 1992, the Claimant filed a letter in which she requested an opportunity to reply to the above-mentioned Iran's submission of 26 May 1992 because that submission, according to her, includes new documents not previously submitted to the Tribunal. The Agent of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran filed a letter on 24 July 1992 objecting to the request. By a letter of 13 August 1992, the Claimant renewed the request.

2. 6. Before proceeding further, the Tribunal decides the Claimant's request. Having regard to Iran's rebuttal filing of 26 May 1992, the Tribunal considers that the evidence submitted in that filing is admissible as rebuttal evidence. Further, the Tribunal notes that it has already twice given both the Claimant and the Respondents a full opportunity of presenting their evidence concerning the Claimant's dominant and effective nationality. See, supra, paras 2 and 4. Moreover, the Tribunal points out that its practice in conducting the proceedings is that a respondent is entitled to file a final rebuttal submission. Consequently, the Tribunal does not deem it necessary to grant the Claimant's request or to request any further filings concerning the issue of the Claimant's dominant and effective nationality.

Having regard to both Parties’ submissions and referring to Articles 15.1, 19 and 22 of the Tribunal's Rules, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to set the following schedule for further submissions in this Case:

1. 1. The Respondent shall file with the Tribunal its Statement of Defence by October 28, 1993.

2. 2. The Claimant shall file with the Tribunal by January 27, 1994 copies of any documentary evidence on which it will seek to rely with respect to any issues remaining in the Case, including any jurisdictional issues not decided in the Interlocutory Award and the merits, together with a list of all documentary evidence submitted by it in this Case and the location in the record (by tab or Exhibit number) of each such document. By the same date the Claimant may file a Hearing Memorial explaining the evidence and summarizing the issues in this Case.

3. 3. The Respondent shall file with the Tribunal by April 28, 1994 copies of any remaining written evidence on which it will seek to rely with respect to any issues remaining in the Case, including any jurisdictional issues not decided in the Interlocutory Award and the merits, together with a list of all documentary evidence submitted by it in the Case and the location on the record (by tab or Exhibit number) of each such document. By the same date the Respondent may file a Hearing Memorial explaining the evidence and summarizing the issues in this Case.

4. 4. The Claimant shall file with the Tribunal by June 27, 1994 copies of any documentary evidence on which it will seek to rely in the rebuttal of previously presented evidence, together with a supplemental list of such rebuttal evidence and the location of each such document in the record. By the same date the Claimant may file a Memorial explaining the evidence and summarizing the issues in this Case.

5. 5. The Respondent shall file with the Tribunal by August 26. 1994 copies of any documentary evidence on which it will seek to rely in rebuttal of previously presented evidence, together with a supplemental list of such rebuttal evidence and the location of each such document in the record. By the same date the respondent may file a Memorial explaining the evidence and summarizing the issues in this Case.

1. 33. Turning now to an examination of this issue, the Tribunal first notes that Articles 22 and 28, paragraph 3, of the [1983] Tribunal Rules, taken together, provide authority for the Tribunal to (p. 503) establish and enforce deadlines for the filing of written submissions, provided that the parties are treated with equality. Fundamental principles of equality and fairness between the parties, possible prejudice to either party, as well as the orderly conduct of the proceedings, require that time limits be established and enforced. The Tribunal has therefore repeatedly stated that no party shall submit any document for the first time at the Hearing, or so shortly before the Hearing that the other party cannot respond to it in an appropriate way. See Harris International Telecommunications, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Award No 323–409–1, paras 57 et seq. (2 Nov. 1987), reprinted in 17 Iran-U.S. C.T.R. 31, 45.

1. 26. By Order dated 23 February 1994, the Tribunal decided to admit the Golzar affidavit into evidence, see para 36, below. The Tribunal did not explain the underlying reasons for its decision at that time, however, and proceeds to do so now.

2. 27. The [1983] Tribunal Rules grant considerable discretion to the Tribunal to admit or exclude written submissions. This discretion includes the power to accept unauthorized post-Hearing submissions, as derived from Article 15, paragraph 1; Article 22; Article 25, paragraph 6; and Article 29, paragraph 2 of the Tribunal Rules.

3. 28. Tribunal precedent is, however, strongly against the admission into evidence of unauthorized late-filed documents. The Tribunal has expressed a particular aversion to admitting documents that are submitted not only after filing deadlines, but also after the Hearing itself. The most extensive treatment of this issue is to be found in Harris International Telecommunications, Inc. and The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Award No 323–409–1 (2 November 1987), reprinted in 17 Iran-U.S. C.T.R. 31, 45–50.

4. 29. Harris emphasizes that in deciding whether to admit a late submission, it is important that the Tribunal treat the parties equally and fairly, bearing in mind that accepting late-filed documents from one party can result in prejudice to the other. A further consideration is the “orderly conduct of the proceedings.” In applying these principles to the facts of a given case, the Tribunal should consider the “character and contents of late-filed documents and the length and cause of the delay.” Late-filed submissions containing new facts and evidence “are the most likely to cause prejudice to the other Party and to disrupt the arbitral process if filed late.”

5. 30. Thus the considerations that are generally relevant when deciding whether to admit late-filed documents are the possibility of prejudice, the equality of treatment of the Parties, the disruption of the arbitral process caused by the delay and the reason for the delay.

1. 9. Under the [1983] Tribunal Rules the Tribunal has the discretion to accept unauthorized late submissions from the Parties. See Article 15, paragraph 1, and Article 22 of the Tribunal Rules. However, in the interests of the orderly conduct of the proceedings and in order to maintain “equality of arms,” it has in general taken a restrictive approach to the exercise of this discretion. See, for example, Dadras International, et al. and Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Award No 567–213/215–3, paras 27–28 (7 Nov. 1995), reprinted in 31 Iran-U.S. C.T.R. 127, 135–36; Edgar Protiva, et al. and Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No 566–316–2, paras 30–36

   (14 July 1995), reprinted in 31 Iran-U.S. C.T.R. 89, 102–03 (“Protiva”); Reza Said Malek and Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No 534–193–3, para 12 (11 Aug. 1992), reprinted in 28 Iran-U.S. C.T.R. 246, 249–50; Harris International Telecommunications, Inc. and Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Award No 323–409–1 (2 Nov. 1987), reprinted in 17 Iran-U.S. C.T.R. 31, 45–50. In the present Case, the Tribunal's Order of 17 April 1996 clearly restricted the scope of the submissions to be made by both Parties. In light of (p. 504) these restrictions and in the absence of any other justifying circumstances, the Tribunal excludes from the record items 3, 4 and 6 of the Respondent's submission of 27 June 1996, the Claimant's entire submission of 22 July 1996 and the Respondent's entire submission of 20 August 1996.

1. 2.1  Admissibility of Late-Filed Documents: Documents Submitted at the Hearings and Post-Hearing Submissions

2. 48. The Tribunal notes that, according to its practice reflected in Harris International Telecommunications, Inc. and The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Partial Award No 323–409–1, paras 57–75 (2 Nov. 1987), reprinted in 17 Iran-US CTR 31, 45–52, Articles 15, 22, 23, and 28 of the [1983] Tribunal Rules are the primary rules regulating the status of late-filed documents. Generally, based upon Article 22, the Tribunal considers and decides which further submissions in addition to the statement of claim and the statement of defence are to be required from the parties in each case and sets forth the schedule for communicating such statements. Moreover, Article 28 gives the Tribunal the authority to make an award based on the evidence before it, if a party that has had the opportunity to file documentary evidence fails to file within the established period of time, and fails to show sufficient reason for its nonconformity. This rule equally applies to the situation in which a party has properly filed its documents, but subsequently tries to submit additional, unauthorized material for inclusion in the record of the case.

3. 49. Furthermore, on the basis of Article 15, both parties to the case have to be treated equally. This means that both parties to the case are entitled to have an equal opportunity to present written submissions and to respond to each other's submissions. This also means that the parties must have an equal opportunity to go through the evidence and the arguments submitted by the other party, and to prepare their own position and arguments in advance of the hearing.

4. 50. Chamber One has taken a strict stance on these matters: no new evidence is permitted prior to the hearing unless the Tribunal finds that it is justified by exceptional circumstances and is filed no later than two months before the hearing in the case. Moreover, as a matter of routine in its orders scheduling a hearing the Chamber advises the parties that any party is free to make whatever arguments it wishes at the hearing; however, parties may not introduce new documents into evidence absent the Tribunal's permission. Such permission normally is not granted except for rebuttal evidence introduced to rebut evidence produced at the hearing.

1. 44. The Tribunal has considered the issue of late-filed documents in several previous Cases. In Harris International Telecommunications, the Tribunal stated that “[t]he starting point of the analysis must be the [1983] Tribunal Rules themselves. There are four rules relevant to this determination.” The Tribunal referred to Articles 22 and 23 of the Tribunal Rules, which provide authority for the Tribunal to establish deadlines for written submissions. In addition, the Tribunal referred to Article 15, which requires that the parties be treated with equality. Moreover, Article 28 gives the Tribunal the authority to make an award based on the evidence before it, if a party that has had the opportunity to file documentary evidence fails to file that evidence within the established period of time, and fails to show sufficient reason for its nonconformity. As the Tribunal stated in Harris International Telecommunications, “these rules provide authority for the Tribunal to make and to enforce deadlines for the filing of written submissions, provided that the Parties are treated with equality.”

2. 45. Chamber One has taken a clear position when deciding the admissibility of late filings. When scheduling hearings, the Chamber routinely informs the parties that it does not permit new (p. 505) evidence prior to a hearing, unless it determines that admission of the documents is justified by exceptional circumstances, and unless those documents are filed not later than two months before the hearing.

The periods of time fixed by the arbitral tribunal for the communication of written statements (including the statement of claim and statement of defence) should not exceed 45 days. However, the arbitral tribunal may extend the time limits if it concludes that an extension is justified.

In a letter dated 5 September 1983, the Agent for the Islamic Republic of Iran requested on behalf of the Respondents that the date for filing Statements of Defence in the above case be extended. The Tribunal notes that the deadline for filing the Statements of Defence has been successively extended on five separate occasions from 15 April 1982 for a total extension of over 17 months.

The Respondents have shown no reasons which would justify a further extension in this case.

Therefore, and in view of the fact that a Hearing in this case has been fixed for 1 and 2 December 1983, the Tribunal denies the above mentioned request for extension. The Order of 29 August 1983 remains in effect.

The Tribunal notes that the Claimant has filed a request for an extension of time to reply to the Respondent's submission of 27 October 1985.

The Tribunal wishes to make clear that it does not intend to defer its deliberations on the present case. Should Claimant wish to file a reply it shall do so as soon as possible. The Tribunal will treat any such submission as a note en délibéré, meaning that pending its receipt, the deliberations will commence.

The Tribunal refers to the two letters filed by the Agent of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 19 December 1985 and 2 January 1986, concerning the late filing by ten days of the Farsi version of the Claimants’ documentary evidence and legal brief.

The Tribunal advises the Parties that no final decision as to the admissibility of these late-filed documents will be made until after the Hearing on 15 April 1986.

In the meantime, in order to take account of any prejudice which might have been occasioned to the Respondent by this late filing, the Tribunal allows the Respondent an additional ten days in which to file its documentary evidence and legal brief, i.e. until 10 March 1986.

As the Tribunal indicated in its Order of 1 October 1986, the Respondents’ request for an extension of three months to file this submission cannot be granted. However, the Tribunal understands that the delay until 9 September 1986 in filing one volume of the Claimants’ Rebuttal submitted on 1 September 1986 has effectively deprived the Respondents of a part of the time allotted for preparation of their evidence and brief in Rebuttal. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is prepared to accept the evidence and brief in Rebuttal, relating to the Claim only and limited to the issues in the Claimants’ Rebuttal, as well as any further evidence and brief regarding the issue of measure [i.e., quantification] of damages (including the issue of quantification of damages with respect to all Counter-claims), if filed by 30 November 1986.

Accordingly, the Claimant shall file any rebuttal to the evidence and brief on quantification of damages sought by the counter-claims by 31 January 1987.

The Tribunal reiterates that the Hearing will be held as scheduled.

The Tribunal notes Claimant's letter of 12 February 1986 requesting a date to be scheduled for the submission of documentary evidence to which it has recently gained access.

The Claimant is hereby instructed to submit not later than 15 March 1986, the above-mentioned evidence and to explain the circumstances that have prevented it from filing such evidence earlier. The Tribunal will then take a decision regarding its admissibility.

The Tribunal notes that the Iranian Agent's request filed on 24 September 1985 does not point to any unforeseen circumstances which might have affected the filing of the Post-Hearing Submissions, nor does it give any new reasons for their lateness. The Tribunal is aware of the communication problems that Iranian Respondents face, and it has taken them into account in this case. In view of this, the procedural history of this case and the exceptional character of Post-Hearing Submissions, the Tribunal sees no need to reverse its decision not to allow the Respondents’ Post-Hearing Submissions.

Reference is made to the submission of the Agent of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran filed on 25 July 1986, whereby the Respondent TCI requests a five-month extension of time to submit its Memorial and any and all evidence concerning the Claim and Counter-claims. Reference is also made to the Claimants’ objections filed on 1 August 1986.

The Tribunal notes that this is Respondent's third request for extension and for modification of this schedule since the Tribunal's Order of 28 June 1985. The Tribunal also notes that, for the first time, the Respondent has submitted a detailed schedule for the authorized inspection of Claimants’ records and for the preparation and submission of its Memorial and evidence. According to the Tribunal this schedule appears to be reasonable.

Taking into consideration the pattern of conduct adopted by the Respondent which, without convincing explanations delayed its application for visas to dispatch its representatives to inspect the records of the Claimants in the United States, and which submitted unjustified complaints about the Orders of the Tribunal, and considering the fact that such conduct could hardly be interpreted otherwise than amounting to dilatory tactics; the Tribunal added to its last Orders the proviso that no further extension would be granted. Consequently, under normal circumstances, the Tribunal would have denied the request for further extension submitted by the Respondent.

However, the request of 25 July 1986 raises certain exceptional factors including the fact that, for the preparation of its defence, the Respondent depends on the inspection of documents which are held within the territory of the United States. Although Claimants have declared themselves willing to facilitate the inspection of their records, in the present state of relations between the two countries, this circumstance involves for the Respondent specific difficulties which cannot be ignored.

In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal orders as follows:

1. 1. The Respondents shall submit their Memorials and any or all evidence concerning the claims and counter-claims not later than December 26, 1986.

2. 2. The Parties shall submit their Memorials and evidence in rebuttal not later than February 26, 1987.

3. 3. The Hearing in this Case set for October 29 and 30, 1986 is rescheduled to take place on March 12 and 13, 1987.

4. 4. No further extension will be granted.

Failure to comply with this schedule may result in the continuation of proceedings pursuant to Article 28, paragraph 3 of the [1983] Tribunal Rules.

The Tribunal will take into account in its Award the financial consequences which might be imposed on the Claimant, with no fault on its part, by the postponement of the Hearing.

On 16 December 1986 the Claimants filed a Request for permission to introduce documents into evidence prior to the Hearing scheduled to take place on 17, 18 and 19 February 1987. The Documents concerned were filed together with the Request in one submission.

The Respondents are invited to submit their comments on the new submission in written form at the latest on 10 February 1987. The Parties are free to also address this matter orally at the Hearing. The Tribunal will decide on the admissibility of the late-filed documents after the Hearing.

The Tribunal notes Respondent the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran's submission of a “Prehearing memorial and supplementary evidence” filed on 14 September 1987.

(p. 511) The Tribunal observes that this Respondent has not given any explanation of the circumstances that have prevented the filing of the above mentioned submission earlier, as required by paragraph 2 of the Tribunal's Order of 24 August 1987.

In view thereof, the “Prehearing memorial and supplementary evidence” of Respondent the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot be accepted.

1. 30. The Tribunal must determine the admissibility of the Second Supplemental Affidavit filed by the Claimant on 6 June 1988. It is not disputed that this document, which contains new evidence, was filed after the final date set for the submission of pleadings in this Case. Under Tribunal precedent, in determining whether to accept such a late submission, the Tribunal considers “fundamental requirements of equality between, and fairness to, the Parties, and the possible prejudice to either Party.” Harris International Telecommunications, Inc. and The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Partial Award No 323–409–1, para 61 (2 Nov. 1987), reprinted in 17 Iran-U.S. C.T.R. 31, 46–47, and cases cited therein.

2. 31. The Respondent objected to this filing on the grounds that they lacked the opportunity to prepare a proper response prior to the Hearing on 8 July 1988. However, on 9 February 1989 the Tribunal informed the Parties that a new Hearing would be held on 22 May 1989. This allowed the Respondents sufficient time to respond, if they so desired, to the Second Supplemental Affidavit. Considering this, the Tribunal finds that acceptance of the Claimant's submission causes no prejudice to the Respondents. The Tribunal therefore admits the Claimant's filing of 6 June 1988.

1. 1. The Tribunal deems it appropriate to extend to 19 March 1993 the time limit within which the Respondent shall file with the Tribunal a Statement of Defence and copies of any written evidence on which it will seek to rely … together with a list of all documentary evidence submitted by it in these Cases and the location in the record (by tab or Exhibit number) of each such document. By the same date the Respondent may file a Hearing Memorial explaining the evidence and summarizing the issues in these Cases. In view of the procedural history of these Cases, the Tribunal does not envisage to grant any further extension.

2. 2. The Claimant shall file by 19 May 1993 a Statement of Defence to Counter-claims, if any, and copies of any documentary evidence on which it will seek to rely in rebuttal of previously presented evidence, together with a supplemental list of such rebuttal evidence and the location of each such document in the record. By the same date the Claimant may file a Memorial explaining the evidence and summarizing the issues in these Cases.

1. 7. The Hearing was held on 7 September 1990. At the Hearing, the Claimant attempted to submit in evidence its Articles of Incorporation and the birth and death certificates of Mr. Raymond Watts in support of its position that Unidyne qualifies as a national of the United States under Article VII, Paragraph 1, of the Claims Settlement Declaration. It is evident that Unidyne could have submitted all of the documents in question to the Tribunal together with its earlier filings. Furthermore, Unidyne has given no adequate explanation for the delay in their submission. The Tribunal therefore determines that these documents are inadmissible due to late submission.

On 2 May 1994, the Claimants filed a submission entitled “Claimants’ Memorial and Evidence, Volume II.” On 6 May 1994, a letter was filed by the Agent of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in which he stated that the unauthorized filing of Volume II was done more than a year after the filing of Volume I by the Claimants and after the filing of the “Respondent's Brief on Jurisdictional Issues and Merits” on 28 April 1994, thereby denying the Respondent the opportunity to comment on the Claimants’ Volume II in its Brief. It was further requested that the Tribunal strike the late filing from the record of these Cases.

The Tribunal notes that the Claimant's Volume II, consisting, inter alia, of an appraisal on the properties that are the subject of the claims, was not filed until 2 May 1994 without any explanation for the delay, although the Claimants had stated in Volume I, filed on 31 March 1993, that they “expected to submit within 30 days, an expert appraisal on the value of the properties that are the subject of their claims as of the date of their taking by Respondent.” The Tribunal further notes that it had ordered the Claimants to file all written evidence by 1 April 1993. The Respondent also pointed out in its Brief, filed on 28 April 1994, that the appraisal had not been presented to the Tribunal.

However, the Tribunal also notes that the evidence now proffered consists of an appraisal and an Affidavit which further clarify the Claimants’ claim. At this stage of the proceedings, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to admit the Claimants’ late filing.

In order to avoid any prejudice to the Respondent, the Tribunal further decides as follows:

1. (1)  The Respondent is invited to file by September 30, 1994 its response to Volume II of the Claimant's Memorial and Evidence.

2. (2)  After receipt of the Respondent's response, the Tribunal will schedule further proceedings in these Cases.

1. 1. The Tribunal notes the letter from the Agent of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, filed on February 15, 2002 (Doc. 7), requesting an extension of time for the Respondent to submit its Statement of Defense. The Tribunal further notes the United States “Objection to Iran's Second Request for Extension,” filed on February 20, 2001 (Doc. 8).

2. 2. Having considered the Parties’ submissions, the Tribunal extends the time-limit for the Respondent to submit its Statement of Defense to April 15, 2002.