In Unicon v. Afghanistan, the dispute arose from a 2013 consultancy services contract between Unicon Limited, a UK-based company, and Afghanistan's Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW) concerning the major CASA-1000 electricity transmission project. Unicon initiated arbitration under the 2013 UNCITRAL Rules, seeking payment for an unpaid invoice, damages for a failed contract extension, compensation for services rendered without charge, and further damages for alleged extortion and harassment by ministry officials. The total claims amounted to approximately USD 1.74 million plus interest and costs. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan did not participate in the proceedings. The ICC International Court of Arbitration, acting as the designated appointing authority, appointed Sally El Sawah as Sole Arbitrator. The Tribunal established Paris as the seat of arbitration and proceeded with the case despite the Respondent's absence, ensuring proper notification was made through various channels, including Afghanistan's embassy in France. The Tribunal first had to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the State of Afghanistan itself, as the contract was formally signed only by the MEW. It concluded that it did, finding that the MEW was a "mere instrumentality" and an organ of the State. The Tribunal reasoned that the MEW was acting on behalf of the State, the project was funded by a World Bank grant made directly to Afghanistan, and other state bodies were involved in the contract's performance. Thus, the arbitration agreement was binding on the State. On the merits, the Tribunal found in favor of Unicon on its primary contractual claims. It awarded USD 444,807 for an unpaid invoice under Amendment No. 3, holding that Afghanistan had breached its payment obligations under the contract. The Tribunal also awarded an additional USD 444,807 as compensation for the Respondent's failure to conclude the promised Amendment No. 4. It found that contemporaneous evidence, particularly email exchanges, established a binding agreement between the parties to extend the contract and ensure Unicon received a total of USD 3 million for its services. Afghanistan's failure to formalize this agreement constituted a breach of that commitment. However, the Tribunal dismissed Unicon's other claims. A claim for services provided during "no-charge" periods was rejected as double-counting, as the value of these services was deemed to be included in the overall compensation awarded for the failed Amendment No. 4. The claim for additional damages related to extortion and harassment was also dismissed for lack of substantiation, with the Tribunal noting it would amount to punitive damages, which it lacked the authority to grant. The final award ordered Afghanistan to pay a total principal of USD 889,614, plus pre- and post-award interest, and the majority of Unicon's legal and arbitration costs.