CHAPTER IV - TRACK 1: SCOPE OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
7. THE STATE’S REQUEST TO RECUSE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE “OMNIBUS” ORDER On October 24, 2014, the Republic of Ecuador filed a motion to recuse three members of the Arbitral Tribunal before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in accordance with Articles 10 and 12 (1) of the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules. This motion to recuse was the result of a series of events that gave Ecuador reasonable doubt, both in respect of the impartiality of the Tribunal, as well as its capacity to dedicate the necessary time to the arbitration. The motion was filed five years after the arbitration proceedings had commenced by Chevron Texaco against the Republic of Ecuador, during which time the Arbitral Tribunal opted not to rule on the urgent motions made by the Ecuadorian State (many of them presented several years ago). In its brief, the State’s defense argues that the record shows that the Tribunal lacked the time to rule on these urgent motions of the State, or, in other words, its dedication of resources to considering and resolving
the petitions of the Claimants in a timely manner, without showing the same respect for Ecuador’s motions, gives the appearance of bias. More worryingly, from Ecuador’s point of view, was the Tribunal’s reluctance to call and schedule an in-situ visit to the Ecuadorian Amazon Region, or to order Chevron to terminate its lobbying efforts to impede the renewal of certain commercial benefits for the Ecuadorian State by the United States government. In addition, for five years, the Tribunal allowed Chevron-Texaco to engage in inappropriate procedural conducts, with the submission of unauthorized evidence or the introduction of completely new allegations over the course of the proceedings, with each brief or just before the hearings. Definitively, the Tribunal’s conduct prevented the government from presenting an adequate defense to its case, violated its right to a fair and orderly proceeding, and allowed that its economic and international interests be affected, beyond the scope of the arbitration. This motion to recuse was formulated under the legal mechanism provided for in the UNCITRAL Rules, with the objective of defending the State’s 157