Clarification Requests 2023

Teams who have received their Team Alias may submit requests for clarification of the case, e.g. of factual ambiguities, if the States have ratified a particular convention, etc. The case committee will be reluctant to respond to requests that ask for a legal conclusion. There are two (2) rounds of clarifications, Round 1 in June and Round 2 in August (please observe the deadlines on the schedule). In each round, each team may submit up to five (5) requests. Each request may contain one (1) question only. Please review below the requests submitted by all teams to avoid duplicate questions (and conserve your team's five requests).

Round 20231

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 2 Test 2
Challeneged measures

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 8 evidence for export license
On page 5, paragraph 21, the claimant stated that it had “obtained the licenses for the export of several components as required by the Dual-Use Regulation”, while on page 33, paragraph 6, the respondent pointed out that the claimant “did not comply with the authorization requirement of the Dual-Use Regulation.” The claimant didn’t submit any evidence related to these licenses. Can the Claimant's licenses for the export as required by the Dual-Use Regulation or any supporting evidence be provided?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 14 Effective time of Santions Law
When was the “Santions Law” enacted and came into force ?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 21 Sanctions Law Decree
Did Claimant request the authorization provided in Article 3.4 of the Sanctions Law Decree 134/2022 and did Respondent grant it?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 22 War
Did the war continue after 25 December 2022?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 23 The Wadaihi-Karamanlean conflict
Is Martineek geographically near to the Wadaihi-Karamanlean conflict?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 29 Nature of Committee on International Trade
What is the status of the Committee on International Trade? Is it a State organ?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 35 MK Robotics assets frozen by the Law Decree 134/2022
Were the remaining 30 % of the MK Robotics assets that were not subject to Sale and Purchase agreement between MK Robotics and Mimic Tech dated December 24 2022 also frozen by the Law Decree 134/2022? Moreover, how long would such a measure last? Would it last only for a specified time until the security issues are resolved, or would it be permanent?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 39 Bail Organa
Bail Organa - who is he? What is his role in the government? What are the competences of Committee on International Trade? What are the competences of its Head?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 64 Applicability of GATT
Are either Martineek or Albion signatories of the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 73 Mr. Organa's competences
What exactly was Mr. Organa's position in Martineek's national law in terms of his competences?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 76 Supplement to Req. No. 57: the meaning of "the Sanctions Law"
What does Claimant mean by "the Sanctions Law" in the Request for Relief? That term is used without any clear definition in the Request for Arbitration as well as other part of the Problem.

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 81 Challenge of sanctions
Does national law provide for the possibility of challenging the imposed sanctions?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 82 "Albion First" and Claimant
In 2020, when DeLorean Technologies LLC acquired a 100% share of MK Robotics, did the company receive financial support from Albion as Mr. Lionel Tusk mentions in paragraph 12 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 83 Asset freeze
What specific limitations does freeze of Claimant’s share imply? Can Claimant exercise its voting rights or pay dividends?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 101 Catch All Control
Does the catch-all controls regulation impose an obligation on an exporter to gain additional licenses or perform additional screening, or is the duty on the state to check goods under catch-all control with more scrutiny?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 109 Scope of Issue 3
For Issue 3, the question is framed as “Whether the challenged measures violate Article 5 of the Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Republic of Martineek and the Federation of Albion”. In the course of our arguments on Issue 3, can we make reference to other Articles of the BIT? (eg Article 4, 6, 8, 9)

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 112 assets frozen according to Sanctions Law
All of Claimant’s assets have been frozen according to Sanctions Law, does that mean MK Robotics was also frozen? Since Claimant held 100% share of MK Robotics.

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 127 Elaboration of Facts
Did the use of Beetle vehicle in the Karmalian Wadahi region impacted the peace of Martineek

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 135 Effect of Sanctions
Are the remaining 30% are all completely frozen or are only part of the 30% of the remaining assets (which are for military use) frozen?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 4 Can we change the valuation date proposed in the request?
Are participants allowed to amend the parties’ prayer of relief substantively? For instance, we found that the Claimant’s claim for damage is quite hard to support by the Tribunal because it is a little bit unreasonable and is very different from traditional methods of calculating damage for unlawful expropriation.

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 9 Exact date of selling assets
On Page 33, paragraph 26, it is stated that the claimant sold “its assets on 25 December 2023”. Since the claimant is supposed to sell its assets in 2022, is this a MISTAKE?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 33 Precise date of impact to market
Line 127 shows that “Starting in December 2022, the reports of possible sanctions became frequent and vastly impacted the market.” What is the exact day of “Starting in December 2022” refer to?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 37 Valuation of MK Robotics
The Claimant´s Exhibit C11 shows that MK Robotics was valued at 91.000.000 USD as of 20 November 2022. What is the nature of this valuation? Was it done by some renowned company or is it simply a value reported by MK Robotic?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 78 Other damages
Is Claimant claiming any damages related to the freezing of the asset other than the difference in price between the sale and the market value of MK Robotics?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 99 Distinction between valuation claims for sold and unsold assets
With respect to the fourth issue, is it restricted to the date of valuation for the assets prematurely sold by MK Robotics prior to the Sanctions law or is the date of valuation also being contested and argued by both parties for the unsold assets frozen under the Sanctions law?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 114 MK Robotics’ value of 14 November 2022
Is there any change of MK Robotics’ value between the period from 20 November 2022 to Mr. Organa’s Twitter? （especially the value of 14 November 2022, one day before Mr. Organa’s Twitter statement）

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 132 Date of Sale and Valuation
Respondent is proposing that the compensation should be paid as per the value at the time of the sale of assets i.e., 25 Dec 2022 however, the sale agreement mentions 24 Dec 2022 as the date of sale. Which date has to he taken into consideration.

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 134 Determining the valuation method
Claimant and Respondent are arguing about both valuation date and valuation method in their request for arbitration and response for request. However, the procedural order only addresses the valuation date. Is it necessary for us to determine the appropriate method for asset valuation?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 1 Test 1
Seeing if Jurisdiction Request Works

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 7 Can we use Article 1 of BIT as the main legal basis?
We noted that both Respondent's relief and PO2 use Article 9 of BIT as the legal basis. We want to know, in addition to Article 9, can we use Article 1 of BIT as the main legal basis?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 15 Time of request for arbitration
When was the Claimant submits its request for arbitration?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 19 Legality
Is there a sanction for non-compliance of the authorization requirement of Article 28, Law Decree 53/2007?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 20 Legality
Did Respondent grant the authorisations requested by Claimant for its Dual-Use products, in compliance with Ordinance 66/2022, modernising Law 53/2007?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 48 Request on further information about the notification of Martineek
Did Martineek notify CLAIMANT about the results of its internal investigation, i.e. the investigation against Dr. Farnsworth’s forgery? When was the investigation results published and publicly available?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 71 Voidable transaction
Is the transaction between the MK Robotics and Delorean Technologies null and void or voidable under Martineek law (specially the Dual-Use Regulation)?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 72 Authorization of the purchase agreement
Was the purchase agreement between MK Robotics and Mimic Tech LLC authorized as required in Article 28 of the Dual-Use Regulation?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 80 Documents submitted under Screening Law
What documents did the Claimant provide to Respondent’s state authorities in order to comply with the Screening Law?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 94 Company Due Process
What were the steps used by the company on the due diligence process? Were there any specific research made (i) on the validity of the public investment documents; and (ii) on the profile of Dr. Farnsworth?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 107 Scope of issue 2
Issue 2 is framed as “whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this dispute in light of Article 9” of the BIT. Can our arguments on jurisdiction also rely on other Articles on the BIT (especially but not limited to Art 12, which is the arbitration clause)?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 122 Article 9 Protection
What is the protection accorded by Article 9.

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 129 Elaboration of Facts
The case states that the when the claimant’s in house counsel went through the documents submitted by Dr. Farnsworth, they did not find any “major” red flags. Were there any “minor” red flags that they found?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 130 Compliance with requirements under Screening Law
Line 105 states that "Following the adoption of the Screening Law and Claimant's provision of all relevant information about its investment, the authorities of Martineek did not show any concern related to Claimant’s investment.". According to the Screening Law, was Claimant obliged to provide the information about the authorisation of the acquisition of MK Robotics to the Martineek authority?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 131 Laws and regulations in force in the host state
Which law or regulation in force in the host state provides that investors shall conduct due diligence before making an investment in Martineek?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 6 an problem about the clause number of Article 4
In Article 4 of the BIT, there are two provisions, namely 4.1 and 4.6, instead of 4.1 and 4.2. We wonder whether it is a typo or actually what it is.

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 11 BIT article 1
On Page 88, it is provided that “claims to money” does not include “ (iii) any order, judgment, or arbitral award related to sub-paragraph (k) or (l)”. However, sub-paragraph (k) or (l) isn’t provided in the article 1. Are these paragraphs related to the case?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 85 General Principles of Treatment in Article 5
Article 5(1) of the BIT contains a reference to "the general principles of treatment provided for in Article 4". We wonder whether it is a typo or actually what is it?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 108 Definition of Investor
Under the definition of “Investor” provided in Article 1 of the BIT, is the phrase “and that is making or has made an investment in the territory of the other Contracting Party in accordance with law of the latter” meant to apply to all (i), (ii) and (iii) or only to (iii)?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 120 Timeline
What are the previous arrangements from Procedural Order No. 1 that remain in force?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 3 Factual Clarifications for Claimant
Based on the Claimant’s Exhibit C8, The Head of Committee on International Trade was Bail Organa whereas the CLAIMANT’S EXHIBIT C9 it was Bill Ortega. Who is the correct name?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 5 Did the host state provide the investors with any relief or compensation?
We wonder whether the host state provided the investors with any relief or compensation, such as an “opportunity to request for internal judicial review on the challenged decree”.

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 12 Parties to international agreement
Is Respondent a party state to any international human rights covenants or mechanisms? Are the two states parties to any WTO agreements, if so, is there any reference to WTO obligations in the BIT?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 13 the identity of "Bill Ortega"
What is the identity of "Bill Ortega" mentioned in CLAIMANT’S EXHIBIT C9 ?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 16 Authorization for sale of assets by MK Robotics
Was MK Robotics given authorization under article 28 of the Dual Use Regulation to sell its assets vide Asset Purchase Agreement among MK Robotics SRL and Mimic Tech LLC dated December 24, 2022 (Exhibit C 10)?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 18 Availability of Authorisations in Public Domain
Are authorisations under Article 28 of the Dual Use Regulation (Exhibit R 1) granted by the government of the Republic of Martineek available in the public domain?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 34 Involvement of MK Robotics drones in Wadaihi-Karamanlean conflict
For what purpose were the MK Robotics drones used in the Wadaihi-Karamanlean conflict?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 36 Form of signatures on official documents in Martineek
In Martineek, is there an established practice as to the form of signatures (digital or hadwritten) on official documents?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 46 Parties of other related treaties and international organization
Are Martineek and Albion party to other international treaties and/or organizations? (i.e: oecd, gatt, wto, cedaw, etc)

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 50 Dr.Farnsworth criminal Record
Is the criminal conduct of Dr. farnsworth from 2018-2020 publicly known or was the conduct recently known from the 2022 investigation?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 51 Discrepancy between 1st and 2nd BIT
Are there any major discrepancies between the first and second BIT Agreement?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 52 The due diligence requirement
Other than having the Claimant’s in-house council review the reports presented by Dr Farnsworth, have the Claimant done anything else to satisfy the due diligence requirement?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 53 Investigation into Dr Farnsworth
When did the investigation into Dr Farnsworth start and why was it started?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 54 Other affected countries
Whether other countries were affected or sanctioned by any of the recent regulatory developments in Martineek (e.g. screening law and dual-use regulation)?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 55 Other international treaties
What other international treaties are the two States, Albion and Martineek, signatories to?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 56 The Source of the UAV with a MK Robotics Trademark
Is there any possibility that the UAV with a MK Robotics trademark was provided by DeLorean Technologies LLC, in consideration of the acquisition of 100% shares in Martineek company by DeLorean Technologies LLC, and thus its control of MK Robotics' assets?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 60 Valuation Change of the Drone Branch
Is there any increase/decrease in the valuation of the drone branch which was previously owned by Claimant but later sold to the Mimic Tech LLC, from 24 December 2022 (the date of sale) to the date of award?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 61 Valuation Change of the Frozen Assets
Is there any increase/decrease in the valuation of the frozen assets, from the date of asset-freezing to the date of award?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 65 FTPG Actions
Pursuant to the meeting of FTPG countries held on 2nd December, 2022, did any other FTPG states take any actions against Albion and/or Albionese companies?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 67 Date of Exhibit C6
What is the correct date of release of the press release enclosed as Exhibit C6?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 77 The Joint Statement by FTPG
What are the concrete contents of the joint statement issued by FTPG States in paragraph 34 of the Uncontested Facts?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 84 2 December 2022 Agreement
What was the agreement between the FTPG States during the meeting on 2 December 2022?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 87 National interests of Martineek
Which relationships does the Republic of Martineek possess with borderline countries (military conflicts, etc.)?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 95 Export Controls
How is the export control of dual-use items done?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 96 Identification process
Was there any identification process on MK's products, including its attachments?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 102 Licenses and Approvals
Martineek has stated that the export of electronic components used in the drone attacks and export of MK Beetle is the reason for sanctions under Annex 1. Is the state here claiming that either of these exports were in violation of the export licenses required under amended dual use regulation and catch all controls?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 104 Hoersch-Kessel
Did Hoersch-Kessel change its name (to Blastech) and get funding from Avaikia after the sale agreement with MK Robotics for electronic circuits or did the same happen prior to the sale, with MK Robotics aware that it was selling its products to a company with Avaikian funding and aware that the end users were mining companies in Avaikia?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 110 Mr Organa's powers
What is the scope of Mr Organa’s powers as Head of Committee on International Trade (i.e., whether the Committee exercises executive/legislative powers)?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 111 Facts on number of exhibits and pages of submissions
(at or around line 1920) Claimant's objections to Respondent's Counsel Resignation states that “it will take months for another counsel to get acquainted with the voluminous case file containing more than 3000 pages of legal submissions and more than 800 factual and legal exhibits”. However, the moot problem only contains 20 Exhibits, and based on the prescribed word limits, the written submissions will likely not reach 3000 pages. Can we rely on “3000 pages of legal submissions and more than 800 factual and legal exhibits” as a fact in making our arguments?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 113 Respondent's governmental department
What is the exact governmental department of Respondent that Claimant asked for authorisations from in Line 85?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 115 the corresponding administrative actions of Respondent State
In lines 2125-2130, what is the corresponding actions of Respondent State to Claimant's "due diligence"? Does the Respondent State fully rely on and trust the internal self inspection materials of Claimant without conducting any prior administrative review of the transaction?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 118 Mr Organa Interview
Did Mr Organa's TV interview actually happen

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 121 Data in Annual Report
Is there a typo for line 1127-1130 of the problem, or are the facts within 1127-1130 different from the data in Annex 1?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 10 Compliance with the Narnian Bar Association's Rules
Upon termination of representation, did Dumbledore, Black & Partners (“DBP Law”) comply with Rules 16.1(d) of the Narnian Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct? [Rule 16.1 (d): Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. ]

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 30 Legal binding of human right to parties
Are Martineek and Albion the parties of any human rights treaty?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 31 Evidence for proceeding delay
The claimant mentions that the current proceedings have already been delayed by Respondent in Claimant’s Objections to Respondent’s Counsel Resignation. Is there any corresponding record to prove it? And how long did this delay the process?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 49 Request on further information about Ms. Alia Azadi
What is the relationship between Ms. Alia Azadi and DBP Law? Is she a member of DBP Law or one of the counsels representing this case?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 66 Other resignations
Whether counsel resignations in other proceedings involving Republic of Martineek were challenged/contested by the other party in the respective disputes and/or whether the Panel/Bench/Tribunal had ruled upon the question of counsel resignation in those disputes?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 69 Author of submission
Should teams write submission on the resignation of counsel in the arbitration on behalf of the Respondent or rather DBP Law?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 70 Contractual relationship with counsel
Is there a contract between DBP Law and the Respondent governing the representation of the Respondent in the arbitration and possible withdrawal of the counsel?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 74 Treatment of The Issue of Resignation
Should the teams deal with the issue of Respondent Counsel Resignation in their memorial and skeleton brief and the oral rounds of regional rounds? Considering the time series, that issue can be addressed only in the oral rounds of globals.

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 88 Counsel Resignation in other proceedings
Did other law firms get any approvals from the tribunals/courts for the resignation of the counsels?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 89 Grounds for Counsel Resignation
How exactly is Law 1609 formed?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 90 Responsibility Assignment
Is there an existing contract between DBP and Martineek to clarify the responsibility assignment of lawyer withdrawal?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 92 Rules of Professional Conduct in Martineek
Does Martineek have any sort of Rules of Professional Conduct or a professional association of lawyers/bar association regulating the conduct of counsel in the home state?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 93 The effect of counsel resignation
If DBP were to be granted their resignation, will the issue of jurisdiction and merits be addressed on the same session and only leave the quantum stage to be decided on a later date OR will it immediately take effect on the day of the hearing and the issue of jurisdiction and merits will be addressed on another session? In what context does "for the next stages in the proceeding." in PO2 mean?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 98 Decision of Narnian Bar Council
While the Narnian Bar Council, in its decision on the termination of representation of Martineek, mentions taking into account representation/request by Narnian Law Firms, did they also reach out to Martineek to hear their arguments on the issue?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 116 Regarding the Narnian Bar Association
Would any more information regarding the Kingdom of Narnian be provided? For example, what's the relationship between Martineek and Narnian, and why did Respondnet choose DBP Law (a Narnian law firm) to represent the Republic of Martineek, etc.

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 133 Narnian Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct
In Narnian Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct there is a statement (Line 1870) “A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation”. What law is implied under the term “applicable law”?

Round 20232

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 261 ceasefire on 28th February 2022
Whether after the ceasefire on 28th February 2022, was there any other attack before the one on 25th December?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 268 the Claimant's capital structure
What percentage of shares does Albion own in the Claimant's company?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 270 Case record reference
What are the deficiencies of due process in Martineek that the Claimant is referring to in paras. 137-138 of the case record?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 155 "Informal Awareness Letter"
What was the content of the "informal awareness letter" reffered to in Page 52, Respondent's Exhibit 4 and when was such letter sent to Claimant?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 166 Sanction Law
Page 16, Line 325 Under Article 4 of the Sanction Law, can Claimant still export as long as it provides an end-user guarantee, or Claimant cannot export as long as Albion is still cooperating with Avaikian?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 169 Claimant's Products Authorization
Page 5, Paragraph 21, Line 110 Claimant stated that they complied with the Dual-Use Regulation and obtained the authorizations for the export of several components as required by the regulation. Still, there is no evidence of the Respondent's authorization. Does Claimant already receive the authorization from Respondent to export MK-1 “Beetle”?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 171 detailed reasons for the other 12 sanctioned Albionese companies
What are the detailed reasons for the other 12 sanctioned Albionese companies?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 173 Regarding the legal review mechanism
Does Martineek have any legal review mechanism regarding the issuance of sanctions?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 182 Treaties
Request 5 - vii. Is the Republic of Martineek a party to international humanitarian law treaties such as The Additional Protocols that follow the fourth Geneva Convention, Hague Regulations 1899 and 1907, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (1980) and the Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008), if so could you please provide a list of all such treaties and conventions to which Martineek is a party?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 183 Dual-Use regulation
Request - 1 Can we have a version of the Dual-Use regulation before the modifications were carried out by Martineek in 2022?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 184 Due Diligence Report
Request 2 - Can we have further details on what has been the analysis carried out in the due diligence report made by DeLorean’s counsels in the deal closing with MK Robotics?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 191 Acquisitions from Atlandia
What was the position of Martineek towards the high-tech acquisitions from Atlandia?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 201 To which part of the Law Decree does the term "sections 3 and 4" in article 9 refer to?
To which part of the Law Decree does the term "sections 3 and 4" in article 9 refer to?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 202 According to Procedural Order No. 3, the Sanctions Law was being applied only on Albioneese companies. Are dual-use materials being produced by producers from countries other than Albion?
According to Procedural Order No. 3, the Sanctions Law was being applied only on Albioneese companies. Are dual-use materials being produced by producers from countries other than Albion?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 204 Were Martineekean companies included in the dual use regulation?
Respondent exhibit 04 mentions the alleged use of components manufactured by 3 companies from Martineek and Quinchao in the terrorist attacks suffered by the Wadai Sultanate, among these companies is included the Martineekean company Industrial Automaton and Martineekean Electronics. Were these companies sanctioned or included in the dual use regulation?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 205 Expropriation
In the Claimant's Exhibit 5, Article 3, Section 4 (a) of the Sanctions Law, it mentions about “a necessary to satisfy basic needs.” What specific elements are included in the term “basic needs”? Can this satisfy the production and operation requirements of the dual-use items of the Claimant? Can the Claimant's daily cash flow issues be sustained in this special circumstances?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 206 Expropriation
In the Claimant's Exhibit 5, the Sanctions Law mentions that the measures under this law shall be reviewed at a regular interval of every 12 months. What’s the specific criteria for the Respondent to follow for this review? Has the Respondent explicitly provided this criterion? And if the Respondent has provided this criterion, is it based on the Claimant no longer producing or selling dual-use items , or is it based on the absence of products traceable to the Claimant in wars? Could you provide the specific content of this criterion?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 223 Valuation of assets
Are there other facts that value Claimant's assets in 2022?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 227 Effect of sanctions
How did the Sanctions Law affect the business of MK Robotics?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 228 Review Process
Has the Claimant availed themselves to the domestic courts of Martineek, or the review process under Art 8 of the Sanctions Law? Does the review process require a sanctioned entity to make an application to avail itself to the review process (Art 8) and release from sanctions (Art 4)?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 229 Extent of freezing of assets
Does the Sanctions Law freeze all of the sanctioned entity's assets or only assets involved in the dual-use regulations?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 236 Challenge of sanctions
Does the Martineekean law allow to challenge sanctions imposed against individual persons?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 238 Scope of Claimant's Request for Relief
Claimant's Request for Relief specifically asks the Tribunal to find that "the Sanctions Law is in violation of Article 5" (line 190). In both Procedural Orders No. 1 and 2, the Tribunal used the term "the challenged measures" instead in reference to the above. Does the scope of Claimant's request include more "measures" or only the Sanctions Law?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 248 State ownership of Claimant
According to Procedural Order No. 3, paragraph 4, "All the listed companies [in the Sanctions Law] are Albionese companies, with State ownership ranging from 40% to 75%". Is DeLorean Technologies therefore owned by the Albion state, and if so, to what extent?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 249 Martineek's international obligations
The preamble of Law Decree 53/2007 (page 35, lines 850 and 855) alludes to "commitments" that Martineek has made in the field of international trade in defence equipment, dual use technologies, etc. What are these commitments? (For example, are these treaty obligations?) To whom are these commitments made, and what is the exact content of these obligations?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 265 Method of valuation
Is the method of valuation (which is not contested by the Parties) based on the market capitalization of the Claimant's shares of 20 November 2022?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 167 Fair Market Value
Page 34, Line 825 Is the date of the sale that Respondent refers to is the valuation of MK Robotics on that day or specifically to the total sales of the assets (USD 25,480,000 based on prior sales)?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 222 Validity of Claimant's Exhibit 11
Does Claimant's Exhbit 11 regarding the valuation of 20 November has any official validity?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 231 Scope of compensation
Does Claimant seek compensation for expropriated shares of MK Robotics and price difference damages for the MK Robotics' physical assets sold?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 259 Alternative usage of MK robotics and De Lorean
Why MK Robotics is the seller when the assets were sold to Mimic Tech, and why De Lorean is the seller when the assets were sold to Martineek?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 260 Electronic Signature
Whether all the electronic signatures that were forged were of the same govt. Authority?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 266 Criminal record of Dr Farnsworth
How could the Claimant have learned about Dr Farnsworth's criminal record?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 269 Governmental authorization
Did the Claimant have access to the official databases where the governmental authorizations are stored?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 272 Investment's valuation
After the Sanction Law what is the valuation of Claimant’s overall investment especially the shares?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 273 Investment's valuation in February 2022
What was the value of the MK Robotics as of the 22 February 2022?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 274 Authorization under Dual-Use Regulation for the acquisition of the Beetles branch by Mimic Tech
Was the authorization based on Art. 28(1) Law Decree 53/2007 of the Martineekean law necessary for the acquisition of the part of the “MK-1 Beetle” manufacturing branch by Mimic Tech LLC under the contract with MK Robotics SRL from December 24, 2022 and if yes then was it granted?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 278 Role of Art. 28(1) Dual-Use Regulation in the establishment of the Claimant's investment
Is the authorization from Art. 28(1) Law Decree 53/2007 necessary for the valid transfer of ownership over the entity defined in that provision?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 279 Fate of the contract between Mimic Tech and MK Robotics
Was the agreement between Mimic Tech LLC and MK Robotics SRL, which was concluded on December 24, 2022, performed, and if so, to what degree?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 281 Criminal Record
Is there any undertaking during the sale of MK Robotics that there is no criminal record?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 282 Claimant's other investments
Did Claimant have other investments in Martineek

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 283 taxes
what kind of taxes has claimant paid?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 138 Representative
Can the respondent argue lack of jurisdiction on different basis than art.9 BIT?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 141 Shares of State in DeLorean Tecb
Please Elaborate the Shares of State in Claimant's Company. Because it affects a lot of Arguments if State is majority Share holder in Delorean Tech. So is it a private company or state owned company?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 146 Authorisation Mimictech
Was the sale of the assets to Mimictech authorised according to Article 28 Law Decree 53/2007?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 147 Article 4
Were MK-Robotics products subject to an authorization requirement (Article 4) prior to the sale of the company to Claimant?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 153 Dr. Farnsworth's Criminal Record
In what way is Dr. Farnsworth's previous criminal record available for public access, if they are at all?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 157 Regarding electronic signature
Could you please elaborate the nature of the electronic signature used by Dr. Farnsworth? Was the Claimant involved in appointment of Saul Goodman and Associates for auditing?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 165 Claimant's Compliance
Page 11, Line 25 Are there any tax compliance or administrative (other states) audits for Claimant?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 175 Due diligence
Does MK Robotics have any internal rules and regulations on due diligence, like contributing the responsibility to the third party or MK Robotics company itself?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 176 Due diligence
Does MK Robotics have any internal rules and regulations on due diligence, e.g., there is discretion for the investor to decide the subject of conducting due diligence duty?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 177 Authorization
At the time of acquisition, was Claimant aware that Martineek had a database of authorisation? Is it possible for Claimant to have access to it?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 185 "Official Databases"
Who may access the "official databases" referred to in Page 31 paragraph 9, both within the Martineekan government and the general public?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 190 Criminal record of Dr. Farnsworth
Were the previous criminal records of Dr. Farnsworth publicly known?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 192 Authorization
Is retroactive authorization required in Art.28 possible under Martineek law?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 193 Authorization
Has Responent ever before revealed violation of the authorization requirement by investors? If yes, what was the Respindent's response?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 194 Authorization
What are the legal consequences following the violation of authorization requirement under Martineek law?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 195 Investigation
When (exact date) Martineek conduct an internal investigation which revealing various instances of misconduct by the former owner of the MK Robotics?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 203 Content of the official request filed by Claimant in January 2023
What was the content of the official request filed by Claimant in January 2023, regarding their inclusion in the sanction list?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 207 Due diligence
Whether the claimant‘s in-house counsel includes laywers from Martineek？

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 214 Authorization
Has the Martineek registered investments for the Claimant? Especially when the Claimant acquired shares from Dr. Farnsworth of the MK Robotics, were the changes in equity also registered?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 215 Authorization
In the 2022 review of the Claimant by Martineek, did the Martineek request the Claimant to submit documents concerning authorization and subsequently conduct an examination?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 220 Criminal Investigation
Is there any history of criminal investigation against MK Robotics prior to the one indicated in the facts of the case?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 224 DeLorean Technologies LLC's Position
Why are the Tax Compliance Certificate & Asset Purchase Agreement under the name of DeLorean Technologies LLC instead of MK Robotics?"

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 233 Effect of Joint Investigation
Has the Republic of Martineek indicated if they have any plans to invalidate the transfer of ownership to DeLorean Technologies following the publication of the joint investigation into Dr Farnsworth?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 239 Dr. Farnsworth's Criminal Record (R2)
Respondent stated in its Response to the Request for Arbitration that Dr. Farnsworth "already had a criminal record for falsifying documents" (line 713), and cited Exhibit R2 as proof for this. However, Exh. R2 only mentions criminal proceedings have been instituted against Dr. Farnsworth. Did Dr. Farnsworth have a past criminal record or was it stated in reference to the current proceedings against him?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 241 Application of Article 28 of the Dual use regime
Did Claimant's in house counsel take notice that the Dual use regime was not applicable on Claimant's acquisition then?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 242 Due diligence
Was there an enagement letter signed between Claimant and the lawfirm hired by mr.Fransworth?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 247 Criminal records
Are criminal records in Martineek publicly accessible?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 250 Meaning of Article 28
Article 28 of Law Decree 53/2007 (page 40, line 1018), provides that “Any natural or legal person who carries out the activities described herein …”. However, Article 28 does not define or describe what are these activities. The rest of the Law Decree 53/2007 also refers to a number of different type of activities. It is unclear what “activities described herein” in Article 28 is referring to. Please clarify what “activities described herein” means. Does it mean, for example, the export and manufacture of dual-use items?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 252 Forgery
Is the forged signature on page 45 the exact forged signature that was used by Dr Farnsworth for the forged authorisation from the Council of Ministers?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 253 Credibility of Saul and Goodman
Could you please expand on the credibility of the law firm hired by Dr. Farnsworth?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 143 BIT Clauses
What are the name of the clause on each article of the BIT?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 150 Skeleton Brief
What is the purpose of a skeleton brief in the context of FDI moot competitions? Could you please provide guidance on how to structure a skeleton brief effectively for FDI moot competitions? Also elaborate what are the key elements that should be included in a skeleton brief to present a compelling argument?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 156 Submission of Skeleton Brief
Please provide what a team should do in case of late submission of skeleton brief? What are the possible way outs, a team can opt for?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 172 “anonymously” or “unanimously”
p. 61, line 1474, is the Parliament agreed on the sanctions “anonymously” or “unanimously”?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 226 General Principles of Treatment
Article 5(1) of the BIT contains a reference to "the general principles of treatment provided for in Article 3". We wonder whether it is Article 3.4 or actually the whole Article 3?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 237 Date of Martineek Herald issue (C9)
Mr. Organa's tweet (Exh. C8) was posted on December 15, 2022. The issue of Martineek Herald (Exh. C9), published on December 19, 2022, described the tweet as being "posted yesterday," which would be December 18. Is the date of the Herald correct?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 240 Name of Buyer in Contract
On page 12, the buyer's name is "Reublic of Martineek." Is this a typo?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 256 Penalty for violating catch-all controls
The catch all controls, as per Annex II of the Dual Use Regulation states “particularly careful screening is required before exporting or transferring these items.” Is there any penalty for not following catch all controls?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 257 Is Mimic Technology, one of the 12 other companies sanctioned?
Is Mimic Technology, one of the 12 other companies sanctioned?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 258 Grant of Authorization
Was the authorization applied for by the Claimants under the Law 53/2007 (“the modernised Dual Use Regulation”) granted, rejected or ignored by the Respondent?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 262 Nationality of Dr. Emett Brown
What is the Nationality of Dr. Emett Brown

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 263 Nationality of Dr. Farnsworth
What is the nationality of Dr. Farnsworth?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 264 Where is Nihonkoku?
Where is Nihonkoku?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 280 News sources
What is the provenance for Varyalenews and Investor news. Are they state-owned?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 284 Meaning of “drone”
Does the "drone branch" in the Request for Arbitration (p.6, para. 26, line 146) truly mean "the MK-1 Beetle manufacturing branch”？Or is it a typo? Or is it a misleading expression on purpose by Claimant?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 136 Other companies in martineek
Are there any companies in Martineek that did not comply with the Screening Law’s notification and authorization requirements?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 137 New regulatory measures
Did the implementation of the Respondent State’s new regulatory measures harm any company’s operations other than the Claimant’s?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 142 Authorisation on part of Respondent
Were there any attempt from Republic of Martineek to establish measures for authorisation?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 144 Further Remedy for lack of authorization
Is there any provision under article 28 of the Dual-Use Regulation in the event of the lack of authorization? What method can the CLAIMANT do to remedy the lack of authorization?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 145 Export Authorization
Are MK Robotics and Delorean Tech LLC have an export authorization according to Article 4?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 148 FET and FPS
How thoroughly does Article 3, which is mentioned in Article 5 have to be examined? Do FET and FPS have to be separately discussed?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 159 In terms of Art.9 of the Dual-Use Regulation
Art.9.2 of the Dual-Use Regulation provides that: "Any person who out of inadvertence fails to meet his notification obligation under section 4(2), shall be liable, for omission to notify export of dual-use goods, to fines or to imprisonment." What does the term "section" indicate? Is it an error for indicating the term "article" or "clause"? Or it is the existing section under the Dual-Use Regulation? If the so-called section exists, which article of the Dual-Use Regulation is under the section?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 168 Claimant's Asset
Page 6, Paragraph 26, Line 145 Is the remaining 30% of Claimant’s assets is the asset referred to in the sanction law, or has Claimant sold the assets referred to in the sanction law before the sanction enacted on 30 December 2023?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 170 Other companies which were trying to sell the assets
Regarding other companies who were trying to sell the assets, Telcomo INC, Aviano Tech and Bailey Motors in p.22 of the record, what business do they run and what’s their nationality?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 174 UNSC Position on Conflict
What is the United Nations Security Council's position regarding the Wadaihi Karamanlean conflict?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 180 Dual use law
Request 3 - Did the Republic of Martineek provided for a period in which its dual-use law as modified and the screening law were not yet into force, in order to allow operators in the market to adapt to the legal changes?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 189 Corruption in Martineek
What is the corruption index/level in Martineek?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 196 Assets of DeLorean Technologies LLC
Who did DeLorean Technologies LLC sell their 70% assets to, was this sale approved by the Martineekian Ministry, and what happened to the remaining 30%?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 197 Purchase of MK Robotics
For what price did Claimant purchase MK Robotics SRL for from Dr. Farnsworth?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 199 Due diligence
Why was due diligence conducted by Dr. Farnsworth and was this established during the negotiations between DeLorean Technologies LLC and Dr. Farnsworth/MK Robotics SRL?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 200 Changes in the political establishment in Martineek
Prior to 2022, were there any changes in the political establishment that ruled Martineek?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 210 Sold assets: robots or drones?
While the Asset Purchase Agreement references the sold assets as related to the MK-1 Beetle, the Request for Arbitration states that Claimant sold the drone branch of its Company.

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 211 Releasable assets
Article 4 of the Sanctions Law mentions that some frozen funds or economic resources may be released to satisfy basic needs. What are those basic needs?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 218 Extraordinary Meeting FTPG
In the extraordinary meeting of the FTPG members, did Respondent did not include Claimant when Respondent stated it would impose sanctiosn on Albion?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 225 Unclear facts
Page 6, para.24: "being aware of the deficiencies of the due process in Martineek" Does this sentence have more factual background?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 230 Trade with Avaikians
Did Martineekean companies or companies from other FTPG states trade with Avaikian companies?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 232 Purchase Agreement
Have Mimic Tech LLC paid the full purchase price for the transfer of 70% of the assets and if yes, have the assets been transferred to them before the imposition of Sanctions Law?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 234 Effect of the government's statement
What impact did Mr Howard Hamlin's statement denouncing Mr Organa’s twitter post have on the market?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 243 The armed conflict
Were there any other investors in Martineek involved in the Wadaihi-Karamanlean conflict not included in the Global Armament Review’s investigation?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 244 Expropriation
Was there any prior notice for other investors before the regulatory amendments?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 245 Procedures of enacting a law in Martineek
What are the proceedings that should be taken in order to enact a law in the Republic of Martineek?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 246 Distance between Albion and Martineek
What is the distance between Albion and Martineek?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 254 Which assets were sold?
As per the sale agreement between Mimic Technologies and MK Robotics, clause 2(f), only MK-1 Beetle Manufacturing Beetle UAV has been sold. However, para 26 of the claimants’ submission states that the claimant “decided to sell the drone branch of its company amounting to 70% if the assets.” Has the drone branch (including components for drones produced by MK Robotics) sold with the Beetle assets?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 255 Is DeLorean tech in any way owned or funded by Albion?
Is DeLorean tech in any way owned or funded by Albion?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 139 Representative
Whether the respondent will represent (plead on behalf of) the counsel?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 140 Is resignation sought from all cases?
Is DBP Law representing the Government in other international proceedings? If so, has DBP Law sought resignation from representing the Government of Martineek only in the instant arbitral proceeding or all other international matters/ cases pending?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 149 DPB
Does the International Bar Association apply? Are Dumbledore Black and Partner members of it?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 151 DBP Resignation
Who should we represent in the memorials: Respondent or DBP Law? Should we formulate a different document to present counsel’s arguments?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 152 Issue 1 Clarification
Who are the parties involved in the first issue?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 181 Applicable law
As per Exhibit DBP_3 – Decision of the Council of the Narnian Bar Association No.1228 of 12 October 2023, under Rule 16.1(c), a lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. What is the applicable law in this case and is there a copy of it?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 187 Human rights track record of Martineek
What is the human rights track record of Martineek?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 188 Legislative process in Martineek
When was the draft of the Law 1609 for the first time presented to the Parliament of Martineek?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 198 Memorandum
Does the Resignation of the Counsel Memorandum count to the FDI word count limit and should this Memorandum be submitted in the same pdf document as the main Memorandum (in Procedural Order no. 3 it is stated that the issue of resignation should be submitted in a separate procedural document, however, the official rules require the teams to submit only one pdf file per procedural party)?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 208 Separate Procedural Document
Are there any formal specifications to the “separate procedural document” regarding Counsel Resignation?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 209 Separate Procedural Document Word Count
Does the separate procedural document regarding counsel resignation count toward the total word limit established by FDI Moot Rules?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 212 DBP Law and Respondent’s professional relationship
It is implied by Respondent’s Letter Concerning the Counsel Resignation that DBP Law has worked for Martineek previously. Did the law firm work in other arbitral proceedings? Did DBP Law terminate all services provided to the country?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 221 Rules pf Conduct
Have the parties agreed on any rules of coduct for counsel?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 235 Availability of legal counsels
Why were there no available legal counsels in the Ministry of Justice (referring to page 75 of the record)?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 251 Resignation effect
Procedural Order No. 3, paragraph 4 states that “If the counsel resignation is accepted, it will be effective for the next stages of the proceedings, i.e., for the filing of one or more rounds of post-hearings submissions, should the proceedings 2015 include this stage, as well as Stage 2 of the proceedings.” Does this mean that, even if DBP’s resignation is accepted, DBP would still have to continue representing Respondent for the oral hearings on Jurisdiction, Merits, and Date of Valuation of Damages?