'Whereas:

On November 12, 2004, the Claimants submitted a Motion to Strike Portions of Two of Respondents' Expert Witness Statements (the "Claimants' Motion to Strike") requesting that certain evidence of two expert witnesses presented by the Respondents be struck on the basis that they are based on hearsay;

On November 16, 2004, the Arbitral Tribunal invited the Respondents to provide a response to the Claimants' Motion to Strike;

On November 19, 2004, the Respondents provided their response to the Motion to Strike. In their response, the Respondents submitted that neither the rules applicable to this arbitration nor the law of the place of arbitration required the Arbitral Tribunal to exclude hearsay evidence. The Respondents also submitted that a number of the Claimants' factual and expert witness statements contained hearsay evidence, which should be struck should the Arbitral Tribunal accept the Claimants' Motion to Strike.

Now therefore the Arbitral Tribunal, having considered the submissions and arguments of the Parties together with the pleadings and witness statements submitted to date, issues the following order:

1. The Arbitral Tribunal constituted pursuant to the ICC Rules of Arbitration and applying those rules in these proceedings, is not required to apply the strict evidentiary rules of the place of arbitration or of any particular national law unless specifically directed to do so by the agreement of the Parties. This is reflected in Procedural Order No. 1, Section 4.10.

2. Further, and in any event, the Claimants have not demonstrated that, pursuant to the applicable law of the place of arbitration (New York State), the alleged hearsay evidence must be excluded in this case.

3. Accordingly, the Arbitral Tribunal dismisses the Claimants' Motion to Strike. The Arbitral Tribunal admits the impugned portions of the expert witness statements of . . . whose relevance and materiality it shall assess in light of the other evidence tendered in the arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal shall attribute to the impugned evidence the weight it concludes is appropriate in light of these factors.'