First, the Request is not a genuine request for a narrow and specific category of documents that GCG reasonably believes to exist. Rather, the Request is based on GCG's assertion that Colombia has failed to prove that the amparo administrativo mechanism was not "a means to force the mass-evictions of local communities" and that "Colombia's officials would not enforce the title holders' exclusivity rights through the amparo process where doing so would risk social unrest." Contrary to GCG's assertion, Colombia has provided ample evidence to support these propositions in its Counter-Memorial and accompanying documents and witness statements (See e.g. Counter-Memorial, Section II.C.3 and all documents referenced therein; and García Witness Statement, ¶¶ 21-23). To the extent GCG wishes to dispute the sufficiency or relevance of such evidence, GCG must do so through submission, not through a request for document production. In the words of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, "[w]hen a party alleges that its opponent has failed to provide evidence for a submission it has made and requests that party to produce the relevant evidence, this request should in most cases be dismissed.”² GCG's request should be dismissed on this basis.

Second, the Request is formulated in vague and unparticularized terms (“Documents that describe, explain or support Colombia's interpretation of the “intended use” of the amparo administativo mechanism"), and allows neither the Tribunal nor the Respondent to ascertain which specific documents are being sought. The Request is therefore contrary to IBA Rule 3(3)(a)(i), which requires that the requesting party provide “a description of each requested Document sufficient to identify it”.

Third, the Request is excessively broad and unduly burdensome. The Request concerns documents in the custody of an indeterminate number of government officials and authorities over an unlimited period of time. For this reason, and because of GCG's failure to

identify documents with particularity, it would be unreasonably burdensome to require the Respondent to conduct an inquiry of potentially limitless (unidentified) custodians, and to examine large amounts of documents in a very short period of time, with the result that this Request should be rejected under IBA Rule 9(2)(c) as well.

Fourth, the requested documents may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law. Per Article 19 of Law 1712 of 2014 (the “Access to Public Information Law”) documents recording the opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during their deliberations are confidential (Annex 2). To the extent the requested documents contain such information, they would be subject to confidentiality protection under the Access to Public Information Law.³

Fifth, to the extent the documents requested concern or are reflective of legal advice to governmental authorities, such documents are legally privileged.

Finally, Colombia objects to this Request to the extent it seeks drafts or non-final versions of any of the documents otherwise falling within the scope of this request. GCG has provided no rationale as to why draft documents would be relevant or material. Only the final version of the requested documents could be potentially relevant and material to GCG's claims as representing the best evidence of whatever GCG might seek to prove via these documents. It would also be unduly burdensome to require Colombia to search for and produce, or confirm the lack of existence of, any and all drafts of the requested documents.⁴

For purposes of efficiency, Claimant is prepared to limit its Request No. 1 to a search and examination of all relevant documents of the custodians as listed in paragraphs 30-31 of Claimant's Memorial.⁵ Claimant limits its request in this manner provided that the scope covers the period prior to GCG's investment, i.e. 2009, to present.

See Counter-Memorial, ¶ 144. Claimant also agrees to limit its request to all final versions or copies of the requested documentation so long as Respondent provides sufficient documentation for Claimant to assess Respondent's assertions.

Contrary to Respondent's assertions, the amparo administrativo is a legal mechanism that provides for the removal of illegal miners, that the Colombian Government has utilized and followed in the past to remove illegal miners. See Ex. CL-22, the 2001 Mining Code, 15 August 2001, Chapter XXVII. Now, for the first time in these proceedings, the Colombian Government asserts that the amparo administrativo is not intended to be used to protect mining title holders' exclusivity rights “where doing so would risk social unrest." Colombia has provided no documentation or evidence for this official Government interpretation of a legal mechanism, or its application to GCG's titles in this proceeding. Claimant believes that there are documents that demonstrate the Government has taken an inconsistent position in the past, and that this legal position is contrary to Colombia's prior actions. It is a tenant of Colombian law, and rule of law broadly, that knowledge of judicial and administrative actions are necessary to guarantee the impartiality and transparency of decisions by Government authorities.⁶

For the avoidance of doubt, Claimant notes that its readiness to - subject to the above conditions and replies - limit its request in this matter is not to be construed as an acceptance of Respondent's objections, which are baseless.

First, the Request is sufficiently specific and clearly delimited in subject-matter. Claimant's request seeks documents related to Respondent's interpretation of the intended use of the relevant legal mechanism under Colombian law, the amparo administrativo. Colombia broadly claims that elected representatives, such as Mayors, have a “prerogative”—and “duty”—“not to enforce orders where doing so would risk disturbances to the public order..." Counter-Memorial, ¶ 9. Contrary to Respondent's assertions, the

documentation Respondent cites to in its objection does not address Claimant's request (see e.g. Counter-Memorial, Section II.C.3, citing to Ex. CL-22, the 2001 Mining Code, 15 August 2001, and Ex. R-142 the Political Constitution of Colombia, 4 July 1991, Art. 315). Claimant's request seeks documents evidencing Colombian officials' interpretation of the “intended use” or basis of the legal mechanism of the amparos. The Mining Code and Constitution do not help to shed light or provide insight into this “intended use", the basis for the "prerogative” of Colombian officials, or where such interpretation of the amparo procedure originates. Further, Colombia provides only citations and references to Mr. García as to the “raison d'être of the amparo administrativos action.” Counter-Memorial, ¶ 142.

Second, to the extent Claimant's request is in “vague and unparticularized terms”, this is because Colombia fails to provide a sufficient basis to particularize where such interpretation as to the proper “intended use” is -- the support it alleges to exist in Section II.C.3 of the Counter-Memorial and the García Witness Statement. As stated above, this objection similarly fails.

Third, the request is not excessively broad and unduly burdensome. Respondent's claim that the request would require an inquiry of “potentially limitless (unidentified) custodians”, and to examine “large amounts of documents in a very short period of time" is unavailing and disingenuous. By Respondent's own admissions in Section II.C.3 of the Counter-Memorial, the relevant municipalities implicated by this request are not comprised of “potentially limitless" and unidentified custodians. Rather, Respondent's allegations and propositions cover a discrete and identifiable number of custodians listed above in footnote 5 and potential documents to be searched and/or examined.

Fourth, serious due process implications arise for Claimant given Respondent's refusal to produce any of the requested documentation at this stage of the proceeding. Claimant has raised concerns about Respondent's unsubstantiated contentions regarding this issue -- and has a legitimate interest to request the production of documents that relate to the assertions included in Respondent's Counter-Memorial. The request is not intended to dispute the sufficiency or relevance of

the evidence presented by Colombia (though that is indeed GCG's position, as its Reply on the Merits will demonstrate in due course). Instead, the request is intended to put the Tribunal in a position to understand the full context of the assertion in order to fairly evaluate such assertion. Respondent should not be allowed to put forward unsubstantiated claims, next refuse the production of documents relating to its claims (including documents, which support or negate those claims) in the document production phase, only to be in a position to ultimately and without scrutiny from Claimant and the Tribunal cherry pick the documents that it wishes to place on record with its Rejoinder, denying Claimant the fair chance to make arguments concerning the validity of such assertions and sufficiency of Respondent's evidence.

Moreover, the question of which party bears the burden of proof is not listed as a ground for an objection in the IBA Rules. Where the burden of proof lies with the producing party, its duty to produce documents serves to ensure that it does not discharge its evidentiary burden by a selective use of evidence, as Respondent attempts to do in its responses and objections herein.⁷

Fifth, Respondent's claim that the documents requested “may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law” is unavailing. The case is governed not by Colombian law, but by the terms of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (“the FTA"). As Respondent themselves argued and acknowledged in their 6 April 2020 letter to the Tribunal, the FTA “already ensures the protection of confidential information” under Articles 830 and 838. Specifically, Article 830 of the FTA indicates that each disputing party has the burden of designating information confidential, and Article 838 defines “confidential information” as “(a) confidential business information; and (b) information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under the law of a Party[.]” FTA, Article 838; PO5, ¶ 5. Further, as this Tribunal has acknowledged, “FTA Article 850(3) also constrains the parties' dissemination of each other's documents by reference to the purpose of such dissemination: such documents may be shared ‘in connection with the arbitral proceedings' with such persons as considered 'necessary for the preparation of a party's case.” PO5, ¶ 15. The FTA specifically imposes on the disclosing party the duty to ensure the protection of confidential information. FTA, Article 850(3) and Article 850(4); PO5, ¶ 16. Finally, this Tribunal retains authority under the FTA (Article 850(2)) to establish specific procedures for the protection of confidential information if necessary to ensure compliance with the FTA. PO5, ¶ 16; see also IBA Rules, Article 9.4 ("The Arbitral Tribunal may, where appropriate, make necessary arrangements to permit evidence to be presented or considered subject to suitable confidentiality protection”). Given the immense protections provided for in arbitral proceedings on this issue, Respondent should not be allowed to use this assertion to avoid reasonable document disclosure.

Further, contrary to Respondent's assertion, Claimant does not seek "deliberations” between public officials, rather, Claimant is seeking Documents that describe, explain or support Colombia's and Colombian officials' interpretation of the legal mechanism at issue -- the amparo administrativos. To the extent such “opinions”, “points of view”, or “deliberations” might be implicated by the scope of this request, the burden is on Respondent to identify which documents are specifically protected by Colombian law and why. Respondent fails to provide a sufficient explanation as to the need to safeguard

this information, which it claims elsewhere within this objection does not exist, by invoking a blanket objection of confidentiality protection.

In addition, even under Colombian law, Respondent's arguments are without merit and production would be required. Article 19 of Law 1712 of 2014 (the “Access to Public Information Law”) (Annex 1) sets forth the general rules for public access to information in control of Colombian authorities, including, for example, “documents recording the opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during their deliberations” as claimed by Respondent. However, Respondent is required to provide sufficient reasons in law to avoid disclosure, such as the actual, likely, and specific risk affecting the rights or matters that the confidentiality is supposed to protect. See Annex I, Article 25 of Law 1755 of 2015 (Right of Petition Law).⁸ In analogous circumstances, Article 27 of Law 1437 of 2011 specifically contemplates and provides for the disclosure to judicial authorities, such as this Tribunal. See Annex J, Article 27 of Law 1437 of 2011 (General Code of Administrative Procedures and Controversies) (“The confidential nature of information or specific documents will not be enforceable against competent judicial, legislative, or administrative authorities that request them for the proper exercise of their functions. These authorities must ensure the confidentiality of the information and documents that they come to know in the development of the provisions of this article.").⁹

Finally, Respondent's objection that the documents are legally privileged is similarly unavailing, and, in any event, Claimant does not seek documents concerning or reflecting legal advice to governmental authorities. See Article 838 of the FTA, “confidential information means: ... (b) information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under the law of a Party[.]” (emphasis

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 83, 87-89.

(2) Respondent, in paragraph 83 of its Counter-Memorial, makes assertions that GCG has not acquired the right to develop large-scale mining project under the mining titles issued under the 1988 Mining Code, because GCG has not submitted certain applications. Respondent, in paragraphs 87-89 of its Counter-Memorial, makes assertions that concessionaires must satisfy and obtain certain permissions from the relevant Government authorities, through a PTO and EIA. In order to assess this assertion and evaluate the accuracy of Respondent's statements, Claimant requires access to the underlying applications as herein requested.

(3) The requested applications and documents are believed to exist because they must have served as the basis on which Respondent has made its assertions in paragraphs 83, 87-88. Colombia is the custodian of the requested documents because they are government forms and applications. For these reasons, the requested documents would be in the custody and control of Respondent.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents (“Request”), and requests that it be denied by the Tribunal for the following reasons:

First, the Request seeks the production of documents that have already been exhibited by Colombia and which are referenced in its

Counter-Memorial concerning certain Colombian legal requirements. Specifically, as explained in the Counter-Memorial, in order to acquire the right to conduct a large-scale mining project, GCG was required to conduct community consultations and obtain the approval of an environmental licensing application and PTO. (See Counter-Memorial, Section II.B.3). Such requirements are provided for under the 1988 Mining Code (see 1988 Mining Code (Exhibit R-106, Arts. 36-38) and the 2001 Mining Code (Exhibit CL-22, Arts. 204-206). Those laws were exhibited in the Counter-Memorial and are publicly available.

GCG provides no valid justification for the production of any documents beyond the laws that are already on the record. Contrary to GCG's assertions, GCG does not require any documents beyond such laws in order to “evaluate the accuracy of Respondent's statements” concerning the legal requirements that applied to GCG's titles. To the extent GCG disputes Colombia's characterization of such requirements, GCG must do so through submission, not through document production requests.

Third, GCG has failed to offer any justification for its request for “documents that detail the procedure” for such applications. It is undisputed that GCG never made any such applications, nor is there any dispute over the procedure that GCG would be required to follow if it were in a position to make them. The documents requested detailing the procedure for such applications are therefore not relevant to any factual issue in dispute, still less material to the outcome of the case.

Finally, Colombia repeats its objection to the production of draft documents set out in response to Request 1 above, mutatis mutandis.

First, contrary to Colombia's statement, the requested documents were not exhibited. What Respondent exhibited includes Exhibit R-106, 1988 Mining Code Arts. 36-38 and Exhibit CL-22, the 2001 Mining Code, Arts. 204-206, however, these excerpts and laws provide only the general terms and legal requirements. They do not contain any specific rules or regulations describing, or providing details, specifics, or the required procedures for completing the mentioned applications, including but not limited to the necessary application forms. Claimant requests copies of the rules and internal regulations necessary to complete the application process, such as the

preparation of the PTO and EIA that Respondent relies on in making its assertions.

Second, the requested documents are relevant because Colombia alleges that there were legal obligations that Claimant did not comply with. In turn, GCG asserts that such documentation has not been required of GCG, and it cannot comply with a procedure for which it is unable to ascertain. This is in conflict with Respondent's assertion that there is not "any dispute over the procedure that GCG would be required to follow” and thus Claimant has a legitimate justification for requesting production of these documents. Claimant needs to understand the obligations it allegedly did not comply with, and the necessary details and procedures for compliance.

Finally, Claimant adopts its limitation to the production of final copies of documents as set out in response to Request No. 1 above, which applies here mutatis mutandis.

For the above reasons, Claimant respectfully requests the Tribunal to order Respondent to produce the documents requested here.

(1) Claimant's Memorial, ¶¶ 32-37, 506-507; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 125-134.

(2) Claimant asserts that Colombia made assurances to GCG, of a favorable investment climate at the time of investment, including protected mining rights. Respondent denies this and claims in turn

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

that Colombia has not made any "specific representations made by the representatives of Colombia.” As such, the requested documents are relevant and material because they relate to this disputed issue and Claimant requests their production.

(3) Claimant believes that the requested documents exist given they would typically be generated in such documents and outward communications. The documents are limited to those delivered to or prepared by Colombia and thus should be in Respondent's custody or control.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents (“Request”), and requests that it be denied by the Tribunal, for the following reasons:

First, the Request is not a genuine request for a narrow and specific category of documents that GCG reasonably believes to exist. Rather, the Request is essentially a “fishing expedition". If any relevant specific representations had been made to GCG, GCG would be in possession of the documents in which such representations were communicated. Having failed to adduce any such documents with its Memorial (see Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 125-134), GCG now seeks to fish for "[p]resentations made to Canadian investors by the Government between 2008 and 2011”, presumably in the hope that such presentations might exist and might provide GCG with an ex post facto justification for its alleged belief that Colombia would carry out military mass evictions of the communities of artisanal and small-scale miners living and working at Segovia and Marmato for decades. GCG provides no basis whatsoever for believing that Colombia is in possession of any such presentations. Rather, GCG's statement that GCG “believes that the requested documents exist given they would typically be generated in such documents and outward communications” presupposes, without justification, the existence of such presentations.

Second, GCG has failed to establish that the documents requested, if they existed, would be relevant to any issue in dispute, still less that they would be material to the outcome of the case. As Colombia established in its Counter-Memorial, GCG failed to adduce any documents with its Memorial proving that Colombia made any specific and relevant representations to it that Colombia would forcefully displace the communities at Marmato and Segovia and eliminate traditional mining there. Instead, GCG referred to (and mischaracterized) a series of generic and irrelevant documents concerning the promotion of foreign investment in the mining sector generally. Further, GCG provided no evidence that it even knew of

such documents at the time it invested. (see Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 125-134). For similar reasons, the presentations requested in this Request, even if they did exist and contained any representations concerning “the policy, status and strategy for addressing local miners on mining properties made available by the Government to foreign investors", would still not be specific to GCG and its investments at Marmato and Segovia, and GCG would still not be able to show that it relied on any such representations.

Third, the Request is excessively broad and unduly burdensome. The Request concerns documents in the custody of an indeterminate number of government officials and State agencies. For this reason, and because of GCG's failure to identify documents with particularity, it would be unreasonably burdensome to require Colombia to conduct an inquiry of potentially limitless (unidentified) custodians, and to examine large amounts of documents in a very short period of time, with the result that this Request should be rejected under IBA Rule 9(2)(c) as well.

Finally, Colombia repeats its objection to the production of draft documents set out in response to Request 1 above, mutatis mutandis.

First, the Request does not amount to a “fishing expedition” since it is clear from the parties submissions that such presentations exist. For example, in GCG's Memorial, at paragraph 32 and as referenced expressly in footnote 45. See Ex. C-34 (“ProColombia, Ministro de Minas invitó a empresarios canadienses a invertir en Colombia ("Colombian Minister of Mines hosted seminar in Canada to promote investments”), dated 6 December 2010”). The request as stated is sufficiently narrow and specific, as it is delimited in both time and subject-matter, and seeks those presentations made to Canadian investors. Respondent's claim that the request “presupposes, without justification, the existence of such presentations” is incorrect and misstates the requirements of the IBA Rules. Claimant is required only to show that such documents are “likely to exist." It is conceivable that other similar presentations are likely to exist.

Second, the materials requested are highly relevant and material to this dispute, as they go to the expectations of the parties, an issue which is the very subject matter of this arbitration. Respondent claims that GCG knowingly invested or should have known when it invested that its titles would require accommodation of the interests of artisanal and small-scale miners. Claimant asserts that the

Colombian Government reassured and made specific representations to investors, including Canadian investors, to the contrary. In fact, GCG made significant investments in Colombia in reliance on Colombia's representations to Canadian and other investors -- representations which promised the exclusive mining title rights, stability, and growth in the mining sector. See Claimant's Memorial, ¶¶ 35-38; Paredes Statement, ¶ 22. Claimant provided several examples as to the various statements and representations made regarding investment in Colombia's mining sector, including reassurance that the Colombian government was committed to addressing illegal mining ventures with force. See, e.g., Claimant's Memorial, ¶¶ 32-36; Ex. C-34; Ex. C-32, Ministry of Mines, PowerPoint Presentation on the Colombian Mining Sector in 2010 and Beyond, dated 2010, pp. 36-39 (Colombia's officials describing Colombia's "attractive investment regulation,” “attractive mining policy," "legal stability,” “attractive Mining Code," as well as an “alignment of interests between the Government and private investors to develop and grow the mining sector.”); Ex. C-36, Council of the Americas, Remarks by Juan Manuel Santos, President of Colombia, dated 23 September 2010 (statements by President of Colombia that the government was and intended to address local miners and illegal mining ventures “with all the force”). Claimant believes that there are additional examples and presentations made, and thus requests production of those documents.

Third, Contrary to Respondent's blanket assertions, the request is not broad or burdensome. It complies with the specificity requirements of Article 3(3)(a) of the IBA Rules by referring to narrow and specific documents or category of documents, such as those discussed above in Claimant's Memorial. The request is furthermore strictly defined by reference the specific subject matter and content of the presentations -- those made to Canadian investors by the Colombian Government on a narrow set of topics. Respondent's allegation that the request spans over an “indeterminate number of government officials and State agencies” is meritless as the requested documents would relate to a subset of Government officials and a specified time frame, namely between 2008 and 2011, thereby providing Respondent with sufficient criteria to narrow its search for responsive documents.

Further, Respondent cannot claim both that the documents do not exist and that the request is excessively broad and unduly burdensome.

Finally, Claimant adopts its limitation to the production of final copies of documents as set out in response to Request No. 1 above, which applies here mutatis mutandis.

For the above reasons, Claimant respectfully requests the Tribunal to order Respondent to produce the documents requested here.

Documents demonstrating the actions taken by the Colombian authorities in the period between 2015- to present to combat illegal mining in Marmato, as alleged in Counter-Memorial, ¶ 201 and Alvaro Chaves Witness Statement ¶ 31, namely:

1. documents, internal correspondence or communications regarding the "judicial police investigations in response to complaints concerning the illegal exploitation of mineral deposits (including complaints filed by GCG)" taken to combat illegal mining activities;
2. documents, internal correspondence or communications regarding the "Carrying out [of] intelligence operations to identify links between informal mining operations and organized crime, as well as groups trafficking in explosives or engaging in money laundering activities through the sale of gold";
3. documents, internal correspondence or communications regarding the “Conducting [of] raids in compraventas (gold trading shops), mines and seizing explosives and mining supplies"; and
4. documents, internal correspondence or communications regarding the “Initiating forfeiture proceedings against individuals involved in criminal investigations for illegal exploitation of mining deposits and money laundering”.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Counter-Memorial, ¶ 201; Alvaro Chaves Witness Statement ¶ 31.

(2) Respondent alleges that Colombian authorities “have taken decisive action” to combat illegal mining in Marmato, and that the Ministry of Defense, the Army and National Police have pursued illegal exploitation of mining deposits and criminal organizations under the Criminal Code. Specifically, Respondent and their witness Alvaro Chaves argue that the above actions were taken in the last four years. Claimant believes the requested documents, internal correspondence or communications exist because they would ordinarily be required to proceed with such government official operations.

The requested documents are relevant and material to the outcome of the dispute because Respondent alleges that the illegal mining occurring in GCG's titles is distinct from criminal or illegal activity, and relies on the above actions purportedly taken distinguish it's inaction to protect GCG's mining titles. Claimant, in turn, responds that Colombian authorities have taken no action to protect its own mining titles in this area and has resulted in the proliferation of illegal mining activities for which Respondent's alleged distinction does not exist. The requested documents would verify the allegations and assertions from Respondent, and as such, Claimant has a right to review them to test the veracity of the allegations. The requested documents are also relevant and material to the outcome of the dispute as they would bear out the distinction that Respondent relies on to distinguish the illegal mining of GCG's titles and the illegal mining that it claims constitutes criminal offenses under Operación Creta, among others.

(3) Claimant believes that the requested documents exist because they are of the type typically generated in the course of amparo administrativo proceedings. As documents prepared or received by Colombia's officials, they are presumed to be in the custody or control of Respondent.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents (“Request”), and requests that it be denied by the Tribunal, for the following reasons:

First, the Request is not a genuine request for a narrow and specific category of documents that GCG reasonably believes to exist.

Rather, the Request is based on GCG's assertion that Colombia has failed to prove the facts alleged at ¶ 201 of Colombia's Counter-Memorial, which refers to ¶ 31 of Alvaro Chaves's Witness Statement. To the extent GCG wishes to dispute the sufficiency or relevance of such evidence, GCG must do so through submission, not through a request for document production. In the words of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, “[w]hen a party alleges that its opponent has failed to provide evidence for a submission it has made and requests that party to produce the relevant evidence, this request should in most cases be dismissed."¹⁰ GCG's Request should be dismissed on this basis.

Second, the Request is formulated in vague and unparticularized terms (“documents, internal correspondence or communications regarding [...]”) and allows neither the Tribunal nor the Respondent to ascertain which specific documents are being sought. The Request is therefore contrary to IBA Rule 3(3)(a)(i), which requires that the requesting party provide “a description of each requested Document sufficient to identify it”.

Third, the Request is excessively broad and unduly burdensome. The Request concerns documents in the custody of an indeterminate number of government officials and State agencies. For this reason, and because of GCG's failure to identify documents with particularity, it would be unreasonably burdensome to require Colombia to conduct an inquiry of potentially limitless (unidentified) custodians, and to examine large amounts of documents in a very short period of time, with the result that this Request should be rejected under IBA Rule 9(2)(c) as well.

Fourth, the requested documents may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law. Per Article 19 of the Access to Public Information Law documents recording the

opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during deliberations are confidential (Annex 1). Further, per Article 33 of the Law on Intelligence and Contra-intelligence, documents containing intelligence or contra-intelligence information are confidential. Such information may only be disclosed to judicial authorities, upon their request, through proper confidentiality arrangements, provided that the disclosure of said information does not put national security or defense, or the integrity of individuals, agents or sources at risk (Annex 2).

Finally, Colombia repeats its objection to the production of draft documents set out in response to Request 1 above, mutatis mutandis.

First, Respondent's objection that the request is not narrow and specific is unavailing, and disingenuous. Respondent is the one who has made the abovementioned assertions as to the specific actions taken by the Colombian authorities, without providing any supporting documentation. Thus, Respondent has made such actions relevant and has shown that they are reasonably believed to exist. Claimant needs to understand what measures, and the scope of the measures that the Colombian authorities have undertaken. This request does not simply relate to the assertions included in Respondent's Counter-Memorial, but it is integral to understand precisely what actions and measures Colombian authorities have taken to combat illegal mining.

Second, Respondent erroneously objects that the request is vague and unparticularized. The request refers to a narrow and specific category of potential documents, and clearly specifies the subject matter and content of the documents requested, exactly as set forth by Respondent at paragraph 201 of Colombia's Counter-Memorial and paragraph 31 of Alvaro Chaves's Witness Statement. The request is further narrowed by the time period and dates specified and by seeking discrete categories of documentation, internal correspondence, or communications that relate to the statements made by Respondent and Alvaro Chaves. As a whole, this constitutes a narrow and specific category of documents per Article 3(a)(ii) IBA Rules. Respondent cannot seriously argue that the requested documents within the scope of this request are formulated in vague or unparticularized terms.

Third, contrary to Respondent's blanket assertions, the Request is not broad or burdensome. It complies with the specificity requirements of Article 3(3)(a) of the IBA Rules, as discussed above. Respondent's allegation that the request spans over an “indeterminate number of government officials and State agencies” is meritless as the requested documents relate to a subset of specific Colombian authorities as identified by Respondent and Alvaro Chaves, including the National Army and Police. The request is further limited to the four-year time period identified by Respondent, thereby providing Respondent with sufficient criteria to narrow its search for responsive documents.

Fourth, serious due process implications arise for Claimant given Respondent's refusal to produce any of the requested documentation at this stage of the proceeding. Claimant has raised concerns about Respondent's unsubstantiated contentions regarding this issue -- and has a legitimate interest to request the production of documents that relate to the assertions included in Respondent's Counter-Memorial. The request is not intended to dispute the sufficiency or relevance of the evidence presented by Colombia (though that is indeed GCG's position, as its Reply on the Merits will demonstrate in due course). Instead, the request is intended to put the Tribunal in a position to understand the full context of the assertion in order to fairly evaluate such assertion. Respondent should not be allowed to put forward unsubstantiated claims, next refuse the production of documents relating to its claims (including documents, which support or negate those claims) in the document production phase, only to be in a position to ultimately and without scrutiny from Claimant and the Tribunal cherry pick the documents that it wishes to place on record with its Rejoinder, denying Claimant the fair chance to make arguments concerning the validity of such assertions and sufficiency of Respondent's evidence.

Moreover, the question of which party bears the burden of proof is not listed as a ground for an objection in the IBA Rules. Where the burden of proof lies with the producing party, its duty to produce documents serves to ensure that it does not discharge its evidentiary burden by a selective use of evidence, as Respondent attempts to do in its responses and objections herein.¹¹

Fifth, Respondent's claim that the documents requested by Claimant “may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law” is unavailing. The case is governed not by Colombian law, but by the terms of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement ("the FTA”). As Respondent themselves argued and acknowledged in their 6 April 2020 letter to the Tribunal, the FTA “already ensures the protection of confidential information” under Articles 830 and 838. Specifically, Article 830 of the FTA indicates that each disputing party has the burden of designating information confidential, and Article 838 defines “confidential information” as "(a) confidential business information; and (b) information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under the law of a Party[.]” FTA, Article 838; PO5, ¶ 5. Further, as this Tribunal has acknowledged, “FTA Article 850(3) also constrains the parties' dissemination of each other's documents by reference to the purpose of such dissemination: such documents may be shared ‘in connection with the arbitral proceedings' with such persons as considered 'necessary for the preparation of a party's case.” PO5, ¶ 15. The FTA specifically imposes on the disclosing party the duty to ensure the protection of confidential information. FTA, Article 850(3) and Article 850(4); PO5, ¶ 16. Finally, this Tribunal retains authority

under the FTA (Article 850(2)) to establish specific procedures for the protection of confidential information if necessary to ensure compliance with the FTA. PO5, ¶ 16; see also IBA Rules, Article 9.4 (“The Arbitral Tribunal may, where appropriate, make necessary arrangements to permit evidence to be presented or considered subject to suitable confidentiality protection”). Given the immense protections provided for in arbitral proceedings on this issue, Respondent should not be allowed to use this assertion to avoid reasonable document disclosure.

In addition, even under Colombian law, Respondent's arguments are without merit and production would be required. There is no arguable basis that any of the requested documents showing what actions were taken by the Colombian government are confidential.¹² Contrary to Respondent's assertion, Claimant does not seek “deliberations" between public officials, rather, Claimant is seeking documents that evidence the actions taken by Colombian officials, including internal correspondence or communications. Article 19 of Law 1712 of 2014 (the “Access to Public Information Law”) (Annex 1) sets forth the general rules for public access to information in control of Colombian authorities, including, for example, “documents recording the opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during their deliberations” as claimed by Respondent. However, Respondent is required to provide sufficient reasons in law to avoid disclosure, such as the actual, likely, and specific risk affecting the rights or matters that the confidentiality is supposed to protect. See Annex I, Article 25 of Law 1755 of 2015 (Right of Petition Law).¹³ In analogous circumstances, Article 27 of Law 1437 of 2011 specifically contemplates and provides for the disclosure to judicial authorities, such as this Tribunal. See Annex J, Article 27 of Law 1437 of 2011 (General Code of Administrative Procedures and Controversies) (“The confidential nature of information or specific documents will not be enforceable against competent judicial,

legislative, or administrative authorities that request them for the proper exercise of their functions. These authorities must ensure the confidentiality of the information and documents that they come to know in the development of the provisions of this article.”).¹⁴ As provided by Respondent, Law 1621 of 2013 (the “Law on Intelligence and Contra-intelligence”) (Annex 2) similarly allows for the disclosure to judicial authorities subject to proper confidentiality arrangements under Article 34. Claimant cannot take such claims at face value, and Respondent is required to set forth the specific grounds for confidentiality protection.

Finally, Claimant adopts its limitation to the production of final copies of documents as set out in response to Request No. 1 above, which applies here mutatis mutandis.

For the above reasons, Claimant respectfully requests the Tribunal to order Respondent to produce the documents requested here.

Documents demonstrating the actions taken by the Colombian authorities in the period between 2015- to present to combat illegal mining in Segovia, as alleged in Counter-Memorial, ¶ 201 and Alvaro Chaves Witness Statement ¶ 31, namely:

1. documents, internal correspondence or communications regarding the “judicial police investigations in response to complaints concerning the illegal exploitation of mineral deposits (including complaints filed by GCG)" taken to combat illegal mining activities;
2. documents, internal correspondence or communications regarding the “Carrying out [of] intelligence operations to identify links between informal mining operations and

3. organized crime, as well as groups trafficking in explosives or engaging in money laundering activities through the sale of gold";
4. documents, internal correspondence or communications regarding the "Dismantling [of] an explosives-trafficking network in Segovia, and arresting five suspects, including Mr. Edwin Castañeda Vahos, operator of La Rubiela mine”;
5. documents, internal correspondence or communications regarding the “Conducting [of] raids in compraventas (gold trading shops), mines and seizing explosives and mining supplies"; and
6. documents, internal correspondence or communications regarding the “Initiating forfeiture proceedings against individuals involved in criminal investigations for illegal exploitation of mining deposits and money laundering”.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Counter-Memorial, ¶ 201; Alvaro Chaves Witness Statement ¶ 31.

(2) Respondent alleges that Colombian authorities “have taken decisive action” to combat illegal mining in Segovia and Remedios, and that the Ministry of Defense, the Army and National Police have pursued illegal exploitation of mining deposits and criminal organizations under the Criminal Code. Specifically, Respondent and their witness Alvaro Chaves argue that the above actions were taken in the last four years. Claimant believes the requested documents, internal correspondence or communications exist because they would ordinarily be required to proceed with such government official operations.

The requested documents are relevant and material to the outcome of the dispute because Respondent alleges that the illegal mining occurring in GCG's titles is distinct from criminal or illegal activity, and relies on the above actions purportedly taken distinguish it's inaction to protect GCG's mining titles. Claimant, in turn, responds that Colombian authorities have taken no action to protect its own mining titles in this area and has resulted in the proliferation of illegal mining activities for which Respondent's alleged distinction does not exist. The requested documents would verify the allegations and assertions from Respondent, and as such, Claimant has a right to review them to test the veracity of the allegations. The requested documents are also relevant and material to the outcome of the

dispute as they would bear out the distinction that Respondent relies on to distinguish the illegal mining of GCG's titles and the illegal mining that it claims constitutes criminal offenses under Operación Creta, among others.

(3) Claimant believes that the requested documents exist because they are of the type typically generated in the course of amparo administrativo proceedings. As documents prepared or received by Colombia's officials, they are presumed to be in the custody or control of Respondent.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent's objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 5, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

For these reasons, Claimant respectfully requests the Tribunal to order Respondent to produce the documents requested here.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant's Memorial, ¶¶ 541-542; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 14, 265-283; R-81, R-82, R-90, R-91, R-94; Alvaro Chaves Witness Statement, ¶¶ 14-26.

(2) Respondent claims that the objective of Operación Creta was not to enforce the amparos administrativos requested by Continental, and that significant differences in circumstances existed. Given that Respondent states that amparos were requested by Continental, Claimant requests production of documents or correspondence specifically related to these amparos during the relevant time period.

The requested internal correspondence is relevant and material to this dispute because it bears on the activities, decision-making processes and actions, or lack thereof, of Colombian officials in addressing or enforcing the amparo administrativos requested by Continental. Such correspondence is relevant to determine what actions and efforts, if any, were taken by Colombia, in addressing such orders. Given the volume of amparos requested by GCG at issue in this dispute, the requested documents would elucidate the alleged distinctions drawn by Respondent in differentiating the circumstances in Buriticá (leading to Operación Creta) and those related to illegal miners in GCG's circumstances in Segovia and Marmato, including Colombian officials treatment of the actions.

(3) The documents requested concern communications or correspondence that are between Colombia and Colombian officials or Continental Gold, Inc., and as such they are presumed to be in the exclusive custody and control of Respondent.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents (“Request”), and requests that it be denied by the Tribunal, for the following reasons:

First, GCG's justification does not establish the relevance or materiality of the documents requested. In its Counter-Memorial (Section II.F.5), Colombia explained in detail the plethora of exceptional social, economic and public order reasons necessitating a military and police operation to remove migrant goldseekers from Buriticá through Operación Creta, as well as the reasons why it would have been impossible and inappropriate for a similar operation to be carried out at Segovia and Marmato. Accordingly, the question whether Operación Creta was carried out to enforce amparos administrativos and the documents requested relating to such amparos administrativos, are immaterial to the outcome of this case

because such documents are not relevant to the facts, established in Colombia's Counter-Memorial, that the police and military operation in Buriticá pursued broader public policy objectives and that a similar operation in Segovia and Marmato would not have been possible or appropriate.

Second, the Request is excessively broad and unduly burdensome. The documents requested are not precisely defined and concern an indeterminate number of government entities and custodians. The Request for documents exchanged between Continental Gold and Colombia also covers an unspecified period of time, and does not allow the Tribunal or the Respondent to ascertain which specific documents are being sought or may be responsive. It is therefore contrary to IBA Rule 3(3)(a)(i). Gran Colombia Gold's failure to identify documents with particularity also means that it would be unreasonably burdensome to require Colombia to examine potentially massive amounts of documents in a very short period of time, with the result that this Request should be rejected under IBA Rule 9(2)(c) as well.

Third, the requested documents may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law. Per Article 19 of the Access to Public Information Law documents recording the opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during deliberations are confidential (Annex 1). Similarly, per Article 33 of the Law on Intelligence and Contra-intelligence, documents containing intelligence or contra-intelligence information are confidential. Such information may only be disclosed to judicial authorities, upon their request, through proper confidentiality arrangements, provided that the disclosure of said information does not put national security or defense, or the integrity of individuals, agents or sources at risk (Annex 2).

Finally, Colombia repeats its objection to the production of draft documents set out in response to Request 1 above, mutatis mutandis.

For purposes of efficiency, Claimant is prepared to limit its Request No. 6 to correspondence, including letters, emails, email chains, and attachments to such documents, that relate to the implementation, order, or instruction, between and among the relevant government agencies and authorities, or between the relevant government agencies and authorities and Continental Gold, concerning enforcement attempts related to the administrative actions. Claimant narrows this request provided that the scope covers all of the eviction orders and Resolutions enforced under Operación Creta and

affecting Continental's titles in Buriticá.

For the avoidance of doubt, Claimant notes that its readiness to - subject to the above conditions and replies - limit its request in this matter is not to be construed as an acceptance of Respondent's objections, which are baseless.

First, the documents requested are highly relevant. GCG is entitled to understand the full picture as to the basis for Operación Creta, including specifically what role the amparos administrativos requested by Continental Gold had in the operation, Colombia's reasoning behind such operations and the treatment and enforcement of the administrative actions at issue. Despite Colombia's assertions, GCG cannot in fairness address Colombia's claims as to the broader public policy objectives and that “a similar operation in Segovia and Marmato would not have been possible or appropriate” without seeing documentation related to these assertions. The simple fact is that Continental Gold submitted amparo administrativos that were enforced by the Colombian government as an integral part of this operation. The requested documentation will further show the capability of the government to enforce such actions, a claim which Colombia puts in dispute throughout its Counter-Memorial. As concrete examples of the orders and actions at issue, see Exs. C-18, C-212, C-213 (referencing Resolution No. VSC-055 dated 20 January 2016 relating to Continental Gold's titles) and Claimant's Memorial, ¶¶ 422, 541, Ex. C-218 (“The Government deployed 2,000 soldiers, closed 220 illegal mining operations and 80 illegal processing plants, confiscated more than 20 kilometers of hoses and 432 illegal vehicles, and evicted more than 2,500 people from the zone.") Documentation elucidating the reasoning for these actions is relevant to the dispute, as GCG is entitled to understand and examine the documentation that shows the reasons why these evictions were ordered or enforced, and the capability of the government in executing such operations.

Second, the request is not excessively broad and unduly burdensome. Respondent's claim that the request would require an inquiry of an “indeterminate number of government entities and custodians" is meritless as the requested documents would relate to a subset of Government officials (interacting with only one specific third party, Continental Gold, and relating only to a discrete subject-matter of

amparo administrativos) in the specific and narrow location of the Buriticá village. Specifically, the government agencies and authorities implicated in this request, at minimum, are: Ivan Duque Márquez, President of the Republic of Colombia; Luis Pérez Guitérrez Governor of Antioquia; the National Army and Police; the Office of the Attorney General; the National Mining Authority (ANM); and the Office of the Municipal Ombudsman, as well as the relevant Mayor's office. See Counter-Memorial, ¶ 272. Further, the requested documents relate to a discrete number of Resolutions, including a discrete number of illegal operations that were closed down. See Counter-Memorial, ¶ 268; Ex. R-91; see also, e.g., Ex. C-18; Ex. C-67, Military Forces of Colombia, Executive Summary of Main Achievements from 2010-2018, pp. 10-14. The request as formulated thereby indisputably provides Respondent with sufficient criteria to narrow its search for responsive documents. In addition, the request does not cover “an unspecified period of time" but relates specifically to the administrative actions requested by Continental Gold and the government actions over this very short four year period of 2016-2019.

Third, serious due process implications arise for Claimant given Respondent's refusal to produce any of the requested documentation at this stage of the proceeding. Claimant has raised concerns about Respondent's unsubstantiated contentions regarding this issue -- and has a legitimate interest to request the production of documents that relate to the assertions included in Respondent's Counter-Memorial. The request is not intended to dispute the sufficiency or relevance of the evidence presented by Colombia (though that is indeed GCG's position, as its Reply on the Merits will demonstrate in due course). Instead, the request is intended to put the Tribunal in a position to understand the full context of the assertion in order to fairly evaluate such assertion. Respondent should not be allowed to put forward unsubstantiated claims, next refuse the production of documents relating to its claims (including documents, which support or negate those claims) in the document production phase, only to be in a position to ultimately and without scrutiny from Claimant and the Tribunal cherry pick the documents that it wishes to place on record with its Rejoinder, denying Claimant the fair chance to make arguments concerning the validity of such assertions and sufficiency of Respondent's evidence.

Moreover, the question of which party bears the burden of proof is not listed as a ground for an objection in the IBA Rules. Where the burden of proof lies with the producing party, its duty to produce documents serves to ensure that it does not discharge its evidentiary burden by a selective use of evidence, as Respondent attempts to do in its responses and objections herein.¹⁵

Fourth, Respondent's claim that the documents requested "may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law” is unavailing. The case is governed not by Colombian law, but by the terms of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (“the FTA”). As Respondent themselves argued and acknowledged in their 6 April 2020 letter to the Tribunal, the FTA "already ensures the protection of confidential information” under Articles 830 and 838. Specifically, Article 830 of the FTA indicates that each disputing party has the burden of designating information confidential, and Article 838 defines “confidential information” as "(a) confidential business information; and (b) information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under the law of a Party[.]” FTA, Article 838; PO5, ¶ 5. Further, as this Tribunal has

acknowledged, “FTA Article 850(3) also constrains the parties' dissemination of each other's documents by reference to the purpose of such dissemination: such documents may be shared 'in connection with the arbitral proceedings' with such persons as considered "necessary for the preparation of a party's case.” PO5, ¶ 15. The FTA specifically imposes on the disclosing party the duty to ensure the protection of confidential information. FTA, Article 850(3) and Article 850(4); PO5, ¶ 16. Finally, this Tribunal retains authority under the FTA (Article 850(2)) to establish specific procedures for the protection of confidential information if necessary to ensure compliance with the FTA. PO5, ¶ 16; see also IBA Rules, Article 9.5 ("The Arbitral Tribunal may, where appropriate, make necessary arrangements to permit evidence to be presented or considered subject to suitable confidentiality protection”). Given the immense protections provided for in arbitral proceedings on this issue, Respondent should not be allowed to use this assertion to avoid reasonable document disclosure.

In addition, even under Colombian law, Respondent's arguments are without merit and production would be required. Article 19 of Law 1712 of 2014 (the “Access to Public Information Law”) (Annex 2) sets forth the general rules for public access to information in control of Colombian authorities, including, for example, “documents recording the opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during their deliberations” as claimed by Respondent. However, Respondent is required to provide sufficient reasons in law to avoid disclosure, such as the actual, likely, and specific risk affecting the rights or matters that the confidentiality is supposed to protect. See Annex I, Article 25 of Law 1755 of 2015 (Right of Petition Law).¹⁶ In analogous circumstances, Article 27 of Law 1437 of 2011 specifically contemplates and provides for the disclosure to judicial authorities, such as this Tribunal. See Annex J, Article 27 of Law 1437 of 2011 (General Code of Administrative Procedures and Controversies) (“The confidential nature of information or specific documents will not be enforceable against competent judicial, legislative, or administrative authorities that request them for the

proper exercise of their functions. These authorities must ensure the confidentiality of the information and documents that they come to know in the development of the provisions of this article.").¹⁷ As provided by Respondent, Law 1621 of 2013 (the “Law on Intelligence and Contra-intelligence”) (Annex 2) similarly allows for the disclosure to judicial authorities subject to proper confidentiality arrangements under Article 34. Claimant cannot take such claims at face value, and Respondent is required to set forth the specific grounds for confidentiality protection.

Finally, Claimant adopts its limitation to the production of final copies of documents as set out in response to Request No. 1 above, which applies here mutatis mutandis.

For the above reasons, Claimant respectfully requests the Tribunal to order Respondent to produce the documents requested here.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(1) Claimant's Memorial, ¶¶ 231-233; Ramirez Statement, ¶¶ 166-172; Counter-Memorial, ¶ 630; Rossi Report, ¶¶ 263, 273(a).

(2) Claimant alleges that Corantioquia (the regional agency responsible for providing environmental licenses and permits in the Department of Antioquia (which covers GCG's mining titles in Segovia)) has caused substantial delay and costs for failure to timely grant environmental permits. Respondent in turn claims that the delay in permitting was not wrongful and was instead caused by routine

(3) statement concerning custody and control

industry delay or costs incurred by reason of the presence of artisanal and small-scale miners.

Claimant believes the requested documents exist, as there would be a corresponding record of documents evidencing deliberations and analyses addressing the permit requests and related issues. This is particularly true given that Respondent alleges that the delay “is common in every country in the world, as the relevant authorities are required to support their decisions with ample technical information and frequently environmental authorities require additional information in addition to the initial application.” (Rossi Report, ¶ 263.) For this reason, to the best of Claimant's understanding, the requested documents exist as application proceedings of this type generally necessitate internal exchanges between case handlers and the decision-making individuals concerning the applications.

The requested documents are relevant and material to the outcome of the case because the associated delays have prevented GCG from developing the infrastructure necessary to efficiently comply with environmental regulations and is illustrative of the damage caused by illegal mining practices in Segovia.

(3) Claimant believes that the requested documents exist because they are of the type typically generated in the course of environmental permit and application proceedings. As documents prepared or received by Colombia, they are presumed to be in the custody or control of Respondent.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents (“Request”), and requests that it be denied by the Tribunal, for the following reasons:

First, the Request is not a genuine request for a narrow and specific category of documents that GCG reasonably believes to exist and which are relevant and material. Rather, the Request is essentially a "fishing expedition". Having failed to adduce any evidence that the time taken by Colombia's authorities to process GCG's applications for the Pomarrosa and El Shaft sites with its Memorial amounted to a "delay", in this Request, GCG persists in mischaracterizing the fact that time was taken to process such applications as a “delay” that amounts to a breach of the FTA. As Colombia established in its Counter-Memorial, GCG's claim is both factually flawed and legally hopeless under the FTA's narrow MST standard in any event. GCG

cannot now fish for documents “relating to the Government's evaluation of GCG's application for permits for the alternative Pomarrosa and El Shaft sites” in the hope that these might show that the process was somehow delayed.

Second, GCG's justification does not support its Request. In particular, to the extent GCG persists in asserting (wrongly) that the time taken by Colombia's authorities to process GCG's applications for the Pomarrosa and El Shaft sites amounted to a "delay”, GCG should already be in possession of the documents required for GCG to establish its case. GCG is, of course, already in possession of its applications and all communications and decisions rendered by Colombia's authorities. GCG cannot show that Colombia's documents “relating to the Government's evaluation of GCG's application for permits for the alternative Pomarrosa and El Shaft sites" would shed any more light on the time taken by the authorities to decide on GCG's applications, still less that such documents would be material to the outcome of GCG's claim.

Third, the requested documents may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law. Per Article 19 of the Access to Public Information Law, documents recording the opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during their deliberations are confidential (Annex 2). To the extent the requested documents contain such information, they would be subject to confidentiality protection under the Access to Public Information Law.

Fourth, to the extent the documents requested concern or are reflective of legal advice to governmental authorities, such documents are legally privileged.

Finally, Colombia repeats its objection to the production of draft documents set out in response to Request 1 above, mutatis mutandis.

First, Respondent's objection that the Request is not narrow and specific is unavailing. Claimant is requesting one specific file relating to Claimant's application and the relevant analysis. This is a sufficiently narrow and specific request. Claimant asserts that the Colombian authorities did not timely grant environmental permits in Pomarrosa and El Shaft, which led to arbitrary fines and fees causing substantial delay and costs. See Claimant's Memorial, ¶¶ 221-235. Respondent asserts that GCG is responsible for any delay, and that Colombia's delay was not wrongful. See Counter-Memorial, ¶ 630. This issue is highly relevant as the requested file will

demonstrate whether or not there was such delay, and whether or not there was any breach. The length of time of the application may be directly relevant to what the Colombian authorities' evaluation of the applications were. This will impact whether it was a reasonable amount of time. The Tribunal should not prejudge the above factual and legal points at the document production stage. The Tribunal should assume pro tem that GCG's claims regarding the Government's delayed evaluation of GCG's application for permits for the alternative Pomarrosa and El Shaft sites have merit, subject to the Tribunal's findings in this respect to be made in a final award. Assuming, therefore, for the time being, that Colombia may have breached the FTA, the documents requested are relevant and material to the outcome of the case for the reasons detailed by GCG in this request.¹⁸

Second, Claimant is not asking for the government's “opinions" or "points of view" but is seeking technical analysis that would necessarily have been performed by the government in the evaluation of GCG's applications. There is no arguable basis that any of the requested documents are confidential. To the contrary, Colombian law guarantees the principle of publicity and the impartiality and transparency of government decisions. See Annex H Constitutional Court. Ruling T-286 of 2018). Further, the Colombian State Council has held that all individuals and companies -- which includes GCG -- have the right to know the reasons for any administrative decisions issued by public authorities, regarding their requests or applications, and to full access to their complete files before public authorities.¹⁹

To the extent such confidential information exists, Respondent otherwise fails to provide a sufficient explanation as to the need to

safeguard this information under Colombian law or otherwise, as set forth in Claimant's replies with respect to Article 19 of the Access to Public Information Law (Annex 2), which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Third, Respondent's claim that the documents requested “may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law” is unavailing. The case is governed not by Colombian law, but by the terms of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (“the FTA”). As Respondent themselves argued and acknowledged in their 6 April 2020 letter to the Tribunal, the FTA "already ensures the protection of confidential information” under Articles 830 and 838. Specifically, Article 830 of the FTA indicates that each disputing party has the burden of designating information confidential, and Article 838 defines “confidential information" as "(a) confidential business information; and (b) information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under the law of a Party[.]” FTA, Article 838; PO5, ¶ 5. Further, as this Tribunal has acknowledged, “FTA Article 850(3) also constrains the parties' dissemination of each other's documents by reference to the purpose of such dissemination: such documents may be shared ‘in connection with the arbitral proceedings' with such persons as considered 'necessary for the preparation of a party's case.” PO5, ¶ 15. The FTA specifically imposes on the disclosing party the duty to ensure the protection of confidential information. FTA, Article 850(3) and Article 850(4); PO5, ¶ 16. Finally, this Tribunal retains authority under the FTA (Article 850(2)) to establish specific procedures for the protection of confidential information if necessary to ensure compliance with the FTA. PO5, ¶ 16; see also IBA Rules, Article 9.5 ("The Arbitral Tribunal may, where appropriate, make necessary arrangements to permit evidence to be presented or considered subject to suitable confidentiality protection”). Given the immense protections provided for in arbitral proceedings on this issue, Respondent should not be allowed to use this assertion to avoid reasonable document disclosure.

In addition, even under Colombian law, Respondent's arguments are without merit and production would be required. Article 19 of Law 1712 of 2014 (the “Access to Public Information Law”) (Annex 1) sets forth the general rules for public access to information in control of Colombian authorities, including, for example, “documents

recording the opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during their deliberations” as claimed by Respondent. However, Respondent is required to provide sufficient reasons in law to avoid disclosure, such as the actual, likely, and specific risk affecting the rights or matters that the confidentiality is supposed to protect. See Annex I, Article 25 of Law 1755 of 2015 (Right of Petition Law).²⁰ In analogous circumstances, Article 27 of Law 1437 of 2011 specifically contemplates and provides for the disclosure to judicial authorities, such as this Tribunal. See Annex J, Article 27 of Law 1437 of 2011 (General Code of Administrative Procedures and Controversies) (“The confidential nature of information or specific documents will not be enforceable against competent judicial, legislative, or administrative authorities that request them for the proper exercise of their functions. These authorities must ensure the confidentiality of the information and documents that they come to know in the development of the provisions of this article.").²¹

Fourth, Respondent's objection that the documents are legally privileged is similarly unavailing, and, in any event, Claimant does not seek documents concerning or reflecting legal advice to governmental authorities. See Article 838 of the FTA, “confidential information means: ... (b) information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under the law of a Party[.]" (emphasis added); IBA Rules Article 9.4.

Finally, Claimant adopts its limitation to the production of final copies of documents as set out in response to Request No. 1 above, which applies here mutatis mutandis.

For the above reasons, Claimant respectfully requests the Tribunal to order Respondent to produce the documents requested here.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant's Memorial, ¶¶ 102, 106; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 145-164, 200, 248-250.

(2) The requested filings have not been produced by Colombia. Claimant needs to see the requested filings to understand what Colombia has represented to the Constitutional Court in these matters, an issue that is central (both relevant and material) to this dispute. Claimant requests their production.

(3) The requested documents exist pursuant to Colombia's involvement in the Constitutional Court proceedings. As documents prepared and submitted by Colombia, they are presumed to be in the possession, custody or control of Respondent.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents (“Request”), and requests that it be denied by the Tribunal for the following reasons:

First, GCG provides no valid justification as to why the documents requested are relevant to any specific issue in dispute, still less that such documents would be material to the outcome of the case. GCG claims, without any justification, that Colombia's “representations” in these "filings” are “an issue that is central (both relevant and material) to this dispute.” They are not. While GCG alleges that Constitutional Court Decision SU-133 itself amounts to a violation of the FTA, GCG makes no allegation that Colombia's representations in the proceeding breaches the treaty, were otherwise wrongful, or are necessary in order to interpret Constitutional Court Decision SU-133. Decision T-433, for its part, was annulled by the Constitutional Court en banc in 2015 and therefore, it is not even at issue in this arbitration.

Second, in any event, even if the submissions of government entities were at all relevant to any disputed issues, the content of such "filings", insofar as the Constitutional Court deemed it relevant to its decision, is already set out in Judgment SU-133 (Exhibit CL-25, pp. 19-25, 43-44 and Order A-511 of 2017 (Exhibit C-95, Sections 4.1

must do so through submission, not through a request for document production. In the words of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal,

"[w]hen a party alleges that its opponent has failed to provide evidence for a submission it has made and requests that party to produce the relevant evidence, this request should in most cases be dismissed."³² GCG's request should be dismissed on this basis.

Third, the Request is excessively broad and unduly burdensome. The documents requested concern an indeterminate number of government entities, over an unlimited period of time. As such, the Request is excessively vague, and does not allow the Tribunal or the Respondent to ascertain which specific documents are being sought or may be responsive. It is therefore contrary to IBA Rule 3(3)(a)(i). GCG's failure to identify documents with particularity also means that it would be unreasonably burdensome to require the Respondent to examine potentially large amounts of documents in a very short period of time, with the result that this Request should be rejected under IBA Rule 9(2)(c) as well.

Fourth, the requested documents may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law. Per Article 19 of the Access to Public Information Law, documents recording the opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during deliberations are confidential (Annex 1). To the extent the requested documents contain such information, they would be subject to confidentiality protection under the Access to Public Information Law.

Fifth, to the extent the internal discussions, analysis, correspondence or notes regarding the issuance and enforcement of eviction orders are reflective of legal advice to governmental authorities, such documents are legally privileged.

³² Offshore Co. v. National Iranian Oil Co., Case No. 133, Chamber II (20 June 1986), cited in O'Malley, Evidence, n. 99 to para 3.72, which reads "[...] where a party brings a document production request on grounds that the adverse party has not provided those documents necessary to support its case, such a request should generally be denied. This type of request does not go to the requesting party's burden of proof but rather its opponent's. Relevance, in order to be proven in the context of a document request, must be demonstrated by establishing why the petitioning party finds the documents necessary to successfully meet its burden of proof” (Annex 4). See also Y. Derains, Towards Greater Efficiency in Document Production before Arbitral Tribunals—A Continental Viewpoint, ICC Bulletin 2006 Special Supplement: Document Production in International Arbitration, p. 87, ¶ 14: “[W]hen a document production request is disputed, the arbitrators have the responsibility of determining whether the requesting party actually needs the documents to discharge its burden of proof. If not, the request should be denied. Hence, a document production request that fails to clearly indicate the allegations the documents are supposed to prove and to explain that proof cannot be otherwise discharged should not be granted. When assessing requests arbitrators must carefully check that the burden of proof actually lies on the requesting party. In too many cases parties request the production of documents to prove the inaccuracy of statements made by the other party [...]” (Annex 5) ↩

Finally, Colombia repeats its objection to the production of draft documents set out in response to Request 1 above, mutatis mutandis.

First, the requested documents are highly relevant and material to the outcome of the dispute, because they demonstrate the Government's analysis as to the reasons why the illegal miners should or should be evicted, in light of over 200 granted, but not enforced, pending orders in favor of GCG.

Respondent's objection is unfounded, as it mischaracterizes Claimant's request as formulated. The documentation and internal correspondence, notes, and analyses relating to the enforcement of the eviction orders will shed light on the extent of implementation or lack of implementation, or actions or inactions by Colombia that have resulted in the denial of GCG's abilities to use its investments as intended. Claimant seeks Colombian officials' analyses of the relevant eviction order, including the decisions as to whether to grant or enforce, and documents that demonstrate the Colombian government official's efforts and actions to enforce the order related to this request. The underlying filings, and documentation requested, will elucidate the distinction between the action and inaction of Colombia's enforcement of such orders, delay tactics, and/or failure to address the more than 600 currently pending amparo administrativo requests, including the one specifically identified within Claimant's request.

Respondent has also asserted in this arbitration that the amparo administrativos procedure is not the proper way to remove the illegal or "artisanal and small-scale miners" -- the documentation related to these enforced orders will be highly relevant to contradict or support its argument, and it is necessary that they be produced.

Thus, despite Respondent's contentions, GCG does not “use the document production procedure” to “fish” for government documents -- it is Colombia that has put such internal government documents in dispute.

Second, the request is sufficiently narrow and specific, and requests documents reasonably believed to exist in relation to one discrete eviction order, and one specific mine.³³ As the requested

³³ Claimant further notes that it has only included within these requests those Actions which were enforced and/or granted, and has not submitted any requests related to the plethora of Actions that have not been addressed by Colombia, relevant and material to this dispute. ↩

documentation relate to eviction orders that the Colombian government itself issued, they are required to implement such eviction orders, to remove the illegal miners, as has been determined by Colombian law, pursuant to the above-stated Resolution. Moreover, such type of documentation indisputably exists, and must be produced for the relevant orders. See e.g., Ex.C-91 (Petition from Piedad Angarita Guerrero, Office of the Attorney General, to Julio Vargas Chica, Mayor of Marmato, dated 9 February 2016 (requesting enforcement of Resolution No. 362 of 2011)). Thus, contrary to Colombia's assertions, such documents are reasonably believed to exist, and Claimant's request as formulated is sufficient under the IBA Rules, Article 3.3(a)(ii).

Third, serious due process implications arise for Claimant given Respondent's refusal to produce any of the requested documentation at this stage of the proceeding. Claimant has raised concerns about Respondent's unsubstantiated contentions regarding this issue -- and has a legitimate interest to request the production of documents that relate to the assertions included in Respondent's Counter-Memorial. The request is not intended to dispute the sufficiency or relevance of the evidence presented by Colombia (though that is indeed GCG's position, as its Reply on the Merits will demonstrate in due course). Instead, the request is intended to put the Tribunal in a position to understand the full context of the assertion in order to fairly evaluate such assertion. Respondent should not be allowed to put forward unsubstantiated claims, next refuse the production of documents relating to its claims (including documents, which support or negate those claims) in the document production phase, only to be in a position to ultimately and without scrutiny from Claimant and the Tribunal cherry pick the documents that it wishes to place on record with its Rejoinder, denying Claimant the fair chance to make arguments concerning the validity of such assertions and sufficiency of Respondent's evidence.

Moreover, the question of which party bears the burden of proof is not listed as a ground for an objection in the IBA Rules. Where the burden of proof lies with the producing party, its duty to produce documents serves to ensure that it does not discharge its evidentiary burden by a selective use of evidence, as Respondent attempts to do

in its responses and objections herein.³⁴

Fourth, Contrary to Respondent's blanket assertions, the request is not unduly burdensome. It complies with the specificity requirements of Article 3(3)(a) of the IBA Rules by referring to narrow and specific documents or category of documents, and is furthermore strictly defined by reference to a single government Action to which the requested documents relate. Respondent's allegation that the request concerns an “indeterminate number of government entities” over “an unlimited period of time” is meritless. The request clearly delineates the exact date and timeline that the Action was (1) filed, (2) granted, (3) notified, and (4) enforced. This indisputably provides Respondent with sufficient criteria to narrow its search for responsive documents.

Fifth, Respondent's claim that the documents requested “may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law” is unavailing. The case is governed not by Colombian law, but by the terms of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (“the FTA”). As Respondent themselves argued and acknowledged in

³⁴ Additionally, contrary to Colombia's contentions, “while each Party bears the burden to prove its own case, a Party should also have access to documents that will permit it to develop such case, whether that is in the form of a claim or a defence or both." Annex A, Gabriel Resources v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/31), PO 10, ¶ 28 to be read in the context of ¶¶ 25-29). Respondent cites to Annex 4 (Offshore Co. v. National Iranian Oil Co., Case No. 133, Chamber II (20 June 1986), cited in O'Malley, Evidence, n. 99 to ¶ 3.72) and Annex 5 (Y. Derains, Towards Greater Efficiency in Document Production before Arbitral Tribunals—A Continental Viewpoint, ICC Bulletin 2006 Special Supplement: Document Production in International Arbitration, p. 87, ¶ 14). However, these works have been widely criticized, and Respondent's argument is “in conflict with the right to obtain evidence. ... [T]he risk of the unequal treatment of the parties corroborates the view that the burden of proof should not be used as a requirement for document production under the IBA Rules." Annex B, Reto Marghitola, Document Production in International Arbitration, International Arbitration Law Library, Volume 33 (Kluwer Law International 2015), pp. 55-57. "It is sometimes suggested that a party may only obtain disclosure of documents material to issues as to which it bears the burden of proof in the underlying dispute. ... There is no basis for this approach in either the IBA Rules, the ICC Task Force's Report on E-Discovery, or sound arbitral procedures. The fact that a party bears the burden of proof on an issue does not make a document that it has requested any less relevant or material, nor any less important to the tribunal's fact-finding mandate. Moreover, the fact that a party does not bear the burden of proof on an issue does not suggest that it will be able to prevail on that issue absent relevant and material documents; its counterparty may, if material (and adverse) documents are not disclosed, be able to prevail by selectively presenting other documents or evidence. It is both illogical and unfair to deny a party disclosure of documents otherwise subject to disclosure, merely because it does not bear the burden of proof with respect to the underlying issues to which the document is relevant.” Annex C Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 3rd edition (2021), p. 2539; see also Annex D, M.E. Jaffe, J.T. Dulani and D.J. Stute, Burden of Proof as a Prerequisite to Document Production Under the 2010 IBA Rules: An Obituary, TDM, Vol. 14, Issue 1, (January 2017) (rebutting Yves Derains” “blanket burden-of-proof rule" (Annex 5) as running “counter to transparency and a party's right to be heard ... Derains' burden-of-proof rule prevents a requesting party from being able to probe the assertions of its opponent by requesting documents whenever the opponent carries the burden of proof on a particular claim. If the allocation of the burden would itself be a ground for refusing disclosure, the IBA's relevance and materiality standard would be eviscerated." ↩

their 6 April 2020 letter to the Tribunal, the FTA “already ensures the protection of confidential information” under Articles 830 and 838. Specifically, Article 830 of the FTA indicates that each disputing party has the burden of designating information confidential, and Article 838 defines “confidential information” as “(a) confidential business information; and (b) information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under the law of a Party[.]” FTA, Article 838; PO5, ¶ 5. Further, as this Tribunal has acknowledged, “FTA Article 850(3) also constrains the parties' dissemination of each other's documents by reference to the purpose of such dissemination: such documents may be shared ‘in connection with the arbitral proceedings' with such persons as considered ‘necessary for the preparation of a party's case.” PO5, ¶ 15. The FTA specifically imposes on the disclosing party the duty to ensure the protection of confidential information. FTA, Article 850(3) and Article 850(4); PO5, ¶ 16. Finally, this Tribunal retains authority under the FTA (Article 850(2)) to establish specific procedures for the protection of confidential information if necessary to ensure compliance with the FTA. PO5, ¶ 16; see also IBA Rules, Article 9.5 (“The Arbitral Tribunal may, where appropriate, make necessary arrangements to permit evidence to be presented or considered subject to suitable confidentiality protection"). Given the immense protections provided for in arbitral proceedings on this issue, Respondent should not be allowed to use this assertion to avoid reasonable document disclosure.

In addition, even under Colombian law, Respondent's arguments are without merit and production would be required. Article 19 of Law 1712 of 2014 (the “Access to Public Information Law”) (Annex 1) sets forth the general rules for public access to information in control of Colombian authorities, including, for example, “documents recording the opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during their deliberations” as claimed by Respondent. However, Respondent is required to provide sufficient reasons in law to avoid disclosure, such as the actual, likely, and specific risk affecting the rights or matters that the confidentiality is supposed to protect. See Annex I, Article 25 of Law 1755 of 2015 (Right of Petition Law).³⁵ In analogous circumstances, Article 27 of Law 1437

³⁵ Under principles of Colombian law, information and documents kept by public authorities are public and of free access. Confidentiality is an exception to this rule and should be interpreted restrictively. Article 25 of Law 1755 of ↩

of 2011 specifically contemplates and provides for the disclosure to judicial authorities, such as this Tribunal. See Annex J, Article 27 of Law 1437 of 2011 (General Code of Administrative Procedures and Controversies) (“The confidential nature of information or specific documents will not be enforceable against competent judicial, legislative, or administrative authorities that request them for the proper exercise of their functions. These authorities must ensure the confidentiality of the information and documents that they come to know in the development of the provisions of this article.").³⁶ Further, the Colombian State Council has held that all individuals and companies -- which includes GCG -- have the right to know the reasons for any administrative decisions issued by public authorities, regarding their requests or applications, and to full access to their complete files before public authorities.³⁷

Sixth, Respondent's objection that the documents are legally privileged is similarly unavailing, and, in any event, Claimant does not seek documents concerning or reflecting legal advice to governmental authorities. See Article 838 of the FTA, “confidential information means: ... (b) information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under the law of a Party[.]" (emphasis added); IBA Rules Article 9.4.

Finally, Claimant adopts its limitation to the production of final copies of documents as set out in response to Request No. 1 above, which applies here mutatis mutandis.

For the above reasons, Claimant respectfully requests the Tribunal to order Respondent to produce the documents requested here.

³⁵ 2015 requires the confidentiality of a document to be declared formally and with proper justification. Therefore, if Colombia intends to designate any documents confidential, it must do so explicitly. Refusal or objection to produce documents on such general basis would also be contrary to Colombian law. ↩

³⁶ Under Colombian law (Article 116 of the Constitution) an ICSID tribunal solving an investment arbitration claim against Colombia shall be considered a judicial authority, and thus is not bound to any of the legal provisions cited in Respondent's objections. See Ex. R-142 the Political Constitution of Colombia, 4 July 1991, Art. 116). ↩

³⁷ Due motivation of administrative acts is a burden that contemporary constitutional and administrative law imposes on the administration, according to which it is obliged to clearly and expressly state the legal and factual reasons that determine its actions. See Annex G (State Council. Ruling 00064 of 5 July 2018). ↩

With respect to Request No. 19(2) and 19(3), the Respondent shall produce any documents (a) reflecting analysis or decision regarding whether or not to undertake efforts to enforce the eviction order granted, and (b) reporting on the efforts thereafter made to enforce the eviction order.

With respect to Action No. 227 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LA POLA 2019 filed on April 5, 2019, granted by Resolution No. 1229, 17 September 2019; Notified 1 October 2019:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order;

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order; and

(3) Documents and internal correspondence, notes, or analyses related to the successful enforcement and eviction of the mine on 19 February 2020.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 19 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 19 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 19, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 19, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Request No. 20(1) denied.

With respect to Request No. 20(2) and 20(3), the Respondent shall produce any documents (a) reflecting analysis or decision regarding whether or not to undertake efforts to enforce the eviction order granted, and (b) reporting on the efforts thereafter made to enforce the eviction order.

With respect to Action No. 3 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) EL RUMBON filed on 17 November 2010, granted by Resolution No. 1172, 21 December 2011:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) There have been approximately 200 eviction orders granted (15-25%) in Segovia and Marmato, but very few enforced. Colombia in its Counter-Memorial has taken the position that this amparo process is not a proper procedure for removing the illegal miners. GCG believes that this current Colombia’s position is inconsistent with Government’s prior actions. Therefore, it is important for the outcome of this dispute to obtain documents related to the Government’s rationale for granting the eviction orders and Government’s subsequent efforts to enforce these eviction orders. The requested documents and internal correspondence are relevant and material to this dispute because they demonstrate what actions

and efforts were taken by Colombia, in enforcing such orders, and the reasoning that informed such actions.

(3) The documents requested are internal to Colombia or concern communications or correspondence of an internal nature. The documents are therefore presumed to be in the exclusive custody and control of Colombia and Colombian officials.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents (“Request”), and requests that it be denied by the Tribunal, for the following reasons:

First, GCG provides no valid justification as to why the documents requested are relevant to any specific issue in dispute, still less that such documents would be material to the outcome of the case. As a party to the amparo administrativo procedure, GCG has full access to the record of the proceedings. GCG should therefore be in possession of a copy of all the documents issued throughout the course of such proceeding. GCG has failed to offer any justification as to why any documents recording any internal discussions, analysis, correspondence or notes of the relevant authorities, or any of the documents relied on to grant and enforce the eviction order at issue, but which were not ultimately reflected in the text of the eviction order are relevant to any disputed issue with respect to this amparo administrativo application, or that such documents are material to the outcome of the case. GCG cannot now use the document production procedure in order to fish for internal government documents which it hopes will show that “Colombia’s position is inconsistent with Government’s prior actions”.

Second, the Request is not a genuine request for a narrow and specific category of documents that GCG reasonably believes to exist. Rather, the Request is based on GCG’s assertion that Colombia has failed to prove its “position that th[e] amparo process is not a proper procedure for removing the illegal miners”. Contrary to GCG’s assertion, Colombia has provided ample evidence to support its case that GCG could not reasonably expect the Government to carry out military mass evictions of the communities of artisanal and small-scale miners living and working at Segovia and Marmato for decades. (See e.g. Counter-Memorial, Section II.C.3 and all documents referenced therein; and García Witness Statement, ¶¶ 21-23). To the extent GCG wishes to dispute the sufficiency or relevance of Colombia’s evidence in support of its position, GCG must do so through submission, not through a request for document production. In the words of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, “[w]hen a party alleges that its opponent has failed to provide

evidence for a submission it has made and requests that party to produce the relevant evidence, this request should in most cases be dismissed.”³⁸ GCG’s request should be dismissed on this basis.

Third, the Request is excessively broad and unduly burdensome. The documents requested concern an indeterminate number of government entities, over an unlimited period of time. As such, the Request is excessively vague, and does not allow the Tribunal or the Respondent to ascertain which specific documents are being sought or may be responsive. It is therefore contrary to IBA Rule 3(3)(a)(i). GCG’s failure to identify documents with particularity also means that it would be unreasonably burdensome to require the Respondent to examine potentially large amounts of documents in a very short period of time, with the result that this Request should be rejected under IBA Rule 9(2)(c) as well.

Fourth, the requested documents may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law. Per Article 19 of the Access to Public Information Law documents recording the opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during deliberations are confidential (Annex 1). To the extent the requested documents contain such information, they would be subject to confidentiality protection under the Access to Public Information Law.

Fifth, to the extent the internal discussions, analysis, correspondence or notes regarding the issuance and enforcement of eviction orders are reflective of legal advice to governmental authorities, such documents are legally privileged.

Finally, Colombia repeats its objection to the production of draft documents set out in response to Request 1 above, mutatis mutandis.

³⁸ Offshore Co. v. National Iranian Oil Co., Case No. 133, Chamber II (20 June 1986), cited in O'Malley, Evidence, n. 99 to para 3.72, which reads "[...] where a party brings a document production request on grounds that the adverse party has not provided those documents necessary to support its case, such a request should generally be denied. This type of request does not go to the requesting party's burden of proof but rather its opponent's. Relevance, in order to be proven in the context of a document request, must be demonstrated by establishing why the petitioning party finds the documents necessary to successfully meet its burden of proof” (Annex 4). See also Y. Derains, Towards Greater Efficiency in Document Production before Arbitral Tribunals—A Continental Viewpoint, ICC Bulletin 2006 Special Supplement: Document Production in International Arbitration, p. 87, ¶ 14: “[W]hen a document production request is disputed, the arbitrators have the responsibility of determining whether the requesting party actually needs the documents to discharge its burden of proof. If not, the request should be denied. Hence, a document production request that fails to clearly indicate the allegations the documents are supposed to prove and to explain that proof cannot be otherwise discharged should not be granted. When assessing requests arbitrators must carefully check that the burden of proof actually lies on the requesting party. In too many cases parties request the production of documents to prove the inaccuracy of statements made by the other party [...]" (Annex 5) ↩

First, the requested documents are highly relevant and material to this dispute. Respondent’s objection is unfounded, as it mischaracterizes Claimant’s request as formulated. The documentation and internal correspondence, notes, and analyses relating to the granted eviction orders will shed light on the extent of the illegal operations. The orders, implementation or lack of implementation, or actions or inactions by Colombia that have resulted in the denial of GCG’s abilities to use its investments as intended, and has effectively neutralized the benefit of property of GCG. Claimant seeks Colombian officials’ analyses of the relevant eviction order, including the decisions as to whether to grant or enforce, and documents that demonstrate the Colombian government official’s efforts and actions to enforce the order related to this request. The underlying filings, and documentation requested, will elucidate the distinction between the action and inaction of Colombia’s enforcement of such orders, delay tactics, and/or failure to address the more than 600 currently pending amparo administrativo requests, including the one specifically identified within Claimant’s request.

Respondent has also asserted in this arbitration that the amparo administrativos procedure is not the proper way to remove the illegal or “artisanal and small-scale miners” -- however, the documentation related to these granted eviction orders will be highly relevant to contradict or support its argument, and it is necessary that they be produced.

Thus, despite Respondent’s contentions, GCG does not “use the document production procedure” to “fish” for government documents – it is Colombia that has put such internal government documents in dispute.

Second, Respondent’s objection on these grounds is unavailing. The request is sufficiently narrow and specific, and requests documents reasonably believed to exist in relation to one discrete eviction order, and one specific mine.³⁹ As the requested documentation relate to eviction orders that the Colombian government itself issued, they are required to implement such eviction orders, to remove the illegal

³⁹ Claimant further notes that it has only included within these requests those Actions which were enforced and/or granted, and has not submitted any requests related to the plethora of Actions that have not been addressed by Colombia, relevant and material to this dispute. ↩

miners, as has been determined by Colombian law, pursuant to the above-stated Resolution. Moreover, such type of documentation indisputably exists, and must be produced for the relevant orders. See Ex. C-91 (Petition from Piedad Angarita Guerrero, Office of the Attorney General, to Julio Vargas Chica, Mayor of Marmato, dated 9 February 2016 (requesting enforcement of Resolution No. 362 of 2011)). Thus, contrary to Colombia’s assertions, such documents are reasonably believed to exist, and Claimant’s request as formulated is sufficient under the IBA Rules, Article 3.3(a)(ii).

Third, serious due process implications arise for Claimant given Respondent’s refusal to produce any of the requested documentation at this stage of the proceeding. Claimant has raised concerns about Respondent’s unsubstantiated contentions regarding this issue -- and has a legitimate interest to request the production of documents that relate to the assertions included in Respondent’s Counter-Memorial. The request is not intended to dispute the sufficiency or relevance of the evidence presented by Colombia (though that is indeed GCG’s position, as its Reply on the Merits will demonstrate in due course). Instead, the request is intended to put the Tribunal in a position to understand the full context of the assertion in order to fairly evaluate such assertion. Respondent should not be allowed to put forward unsubstantiated claims, next refuse the production of documents relating to its claims (including documents, which support or negate those claims) in the document production phase, only to be in a position to ultimately and without scrutiny from Claimant and the Tribunal cherry pick the documents that it wishes to place on record with its Rejoinder, denying Claimant the fair chance to make arguments concerning the validity of such assertions and sufficiency of Respondent’s evidence.

Moreover, the question of which party bears the burden of proof is not listed as a ground for an objection in the IBA Rules. Where the burden of proof lies with the producing party, its duty to produce documents serves to ensure that it does not discharge its evidentiary burden by a selective use of evidence, as Respondent attempts to do in its responses and objections herein.⁴⁰

⁴⁰ Additionally, contrary to Colombia’s contentions, “while each Party bears the burden to prove its own case, a Party should also have access to documents that will permit it to develop such case, whether that is in the form of a claim or a defence or both." Annex A, Gabriel Resources v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/31), PO 10, ¶ 28 to be read in the context of ¶¶ 25-29). Respondent cites to Annex 4 (Offshore Co. v. National Iranian Oil Co., Case No. 133, ↩

Fourth, Contrary to Respondent’s blanket assertions, the Request is not unduly burdensome. It complies with the specificity requirements of Article 3(3)(a) of the IBA Rules by referring to narrow and specific documents or category of documents, and is furthermore strictly defined by reference to a single government Action to which the requested documents relate. Respondent’s allegation that the request concerns an “indeterminate number of government entities” over “an unlimited period of time” is meritless. The request clearly delineates the exact date and timeline that the Action was (1) filed, (2) granted, and/or (3) notified. This indisputably provides Respondent with sufficient criteria to narrow its search for responsive documents.

Fifth, Respondent’s claim that the documents requested “may contain information that is subject to legal impediment under Colombian law” is unavailing. The case is governed not by Colombian law, but by the terms of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (“the FTA”). As Respondent themselves argued and acknowledged in their 6 April 2020 letter to the Tribunal, the FTA “already ensures the protection of confidential information” under Articles 830 and 838. Specifically, Article 830 of the FTA indicates that each disputing party has the burden of designating information confidential, and Article 838 defines “confidential information” as “(a) confidential

Chamber II (20 June 1986), cited in O'Malley, Evidence, n. 99 to ¶ 3.72) and Annex 5 (Y. Derains, Towards Greater Efficiency in Document Production before Arbitral Tribunals—A Continental Viewpoint, ICC Bulletin 2006 Special Supplement: Document Production in International Arbitration, p. 87, ¶ 14). However, these works have been widely criticized, and Respondent's argument is “in conflict with the right to obtain evidence. ... [T]he risk of the unequal treatment of the parties corroborates the view that the burden of proof should not be used as a requirement for document production under the IBA Rules." Annex B, Reto Marghitola, Document Production in International Arbitration, International Arbitration Law Library, Volume 33 (Kluwer Law International 2015), pp. 55-57. "It is sometimes suggested that a party may only obtain disclosure of documents material to issues as to which it bears the burden of proof in the underlying dispute. ... There is no basis for this approach in either the IBA Rules, the ICC Task Force's Report on E-Discovery, or sound arbitral procedures. The fact that a party bears the burden of proof on an issue does not make a document that it has requested any less relevant or material, nor any less important to the tribunal's fact-finding mandate. Moreover, the fact that a party does not bear the burden of proof on an issue does not suggest that it will be able to prevail on that issue absent relevant and material documents; its counterparty may, if material (and adverse) documents are not disclosed, be able to prevail by selectively presenting other documents or evidence. It is both illogical and unfair to deny a party disclosure of documents otherwise subject to disclosure, merely because it does not bear the burden of proof with respect to the underlying issues to which the document is relevant.” Annex C, Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 3rd edition (2021), p. 2539; see also Annex D, M.E. Jaffe, J.T. Dulani and D.J. Stute, Burden of Proof as a Prerequisite to Document Production Under the 2010 IBA Rules: An Obituary, TDM, Vol. 14, Issue 1, (January 2017) (rebutting Yves Derains” “blanket burden-of-proof rule" (Annex 5) as running “counter to transparency and a party's right to be heard ... Derains' burden-of-proof rule prevents a requesting party from being able to probe the assertions of its opponent by requesting documents whenever the opponent carries the burden of proof on a particular claim. If the allocation of the burden would itself be a ground for refusing disclosure, the IBA's relevance and materiality standard would be eviscerated."

business information; and (b) information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under the law of a Party[.]” FTA, Article 838; PO5, ¶ 5. Further, as this Tribunal has acknowledged, “FTA Article 850(3) also constrains the parties' dissemination of each other's documents by reference to the purpose of such dissemination: such documents may be shared ‘in connection with the arbitral proceedings' with such persons as considered ‘necessary for the preparation of a party's case.” PO5, ¶ 15. The FTA specifically imposes on the disclosing party the duty to ensure the protection of confidential information. FTA, Article 850(3) and Article 850(4); PO5, ¶ 16. Finally, this Tribunal retains authority under the FTA (Article 850(2)) to establish specific procedures for the protection of confidential information if necessary to ensure compliance with the FTA. PO5, ¶ 16; see also IBA Rules, Article 9.5 (“The Arbitral Tribunal may, where appropriate, make necessary arrangements to permit evidence to be presented or considered subject to suitable confidentiality protection”). Given the immense protections provided for in arbitral proceedings on this issue, Respondent should not be allowed to use this assertion to avoid reasonable document disclosure.

In addition, even under Colombian law, Respondent’s arguments are without merit and production would be required. Article 19 of Law 1712 of 2014 (the “Access to Public Information Law”) (Annex 1) sets forth the general rules for public access to information in control of Colombian authorities, including, for example, “documents recording the opinions and points of view expressed by public officials during their deliberations” as claimed by Respondent. However, Respondent is required to provide sufficient reasons in law to avoid disclosure, such as the actual, likely, and specific risk affecting the rights or matters that the confidentiality is supposed to protect. See Annex I, Article 25 of Law 1755 of 2015 (Right of Petition Law).⁴¹ In analogous circumstances, Article 27 of Law 1437 of 2011 specifically contemplates and provides for the disclosure to judicial authorities, such as this Tribunal. See Annex J, Article 27 of Law 1437 of 2011 (General Code of Administrative Procedures and

⁴¹ Under principles of Colombian law, information and documents kept by public authorities are public and of free access. Confidentiality is an exception to this rule and should be interpreted restrictively. Article 25 of Law 1755 of 2015 requires the confidentiality of a document to be declared formally and with proper justification. Therefore, if Colombia intends to designate any documents confidential, it must do so explicitly. Refusal or objection to produce documents on such general basis would also be contrary to Colombian law. ↩

Controversies) (“The confidential nature of information or specific documents will not be enforceable against competent judicial, legislative, or administrative authorities that request them for the proper exercise of their functions. These authorities must ensure the confidentiality of the information and documents that they come to know in the development of the provisions of this article.").⁴² Further, the Colombian State Council has held that all individuals and companies -- which includes GCG -- have the right to know the reasons for any administrative decisions issued by public authorities, regarding their requests or applications, and to full access to their complete files before public authorities.⁴³

Sixth, Respondent’s objection that the documents are legally privileged is similarly unavailing, and, in any event, Claimant does not seek documents concerning or reflecting legal advice to governmental authorities. See Article 838 of the FTA, “confidential information means: ... (b) information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under the law of a Party[.]” (emphasis added); IBA Rules Article 9.4.

Finally, Claimant adopts its limitation to the production of final copies of documents as set out in response to Request No. 1 above, which applies here mutatis mutandis.

For the above reasons, Claimant respectfully requests the Tribunal to order Respondent to produce the documents requested here.

⁴² Under Colombian law (Article 116 of the Constitution) an ICSID tribunal solving an investment arbitration claim against Colombia shall be considered a judicial authority, and thus is not bound to any of the legal provisions cited in Respondent's objections. See Exhibit R-142 the Political Constitution of Colombia, 4 July 1991, Art. 116). ↩

⁴³ Due motivation of administrative acts is a burden that contemporary constitutional and administrative law imposes on the administration, according to which it is obliged to clearly and expressly state the legal and factual reasons that determine its actions. See Annex G (State Council. Ruling 00064 of July 5, 2018). ↩

Request No. 21(1) denied.

With respect to Request No. 21(2), the Respondent shall produce any documents (a) reflecting analysis or decision regarding whether or not to undertake efforts to enforce the eviction order granted, and (b) reporting on any efforts thereafter made to enforce the eviction order.

With respect to Action No. 4 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) EL CHOCHO filed on 17 November 2010, granted by Resolution No. 352, 3 July 2015:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 15 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LA LUCIANA filed on 21 February 2011, granted by Resolution No. 350, 3 July 2015:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 16 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) EL GUAMERU filed on 21 February 2011, granted by Resolution No. 079, 5 March 2015:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 19 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) CORDOBA filed on 21 February 2011, granted by Resolution No. 0076, 15 March 2015:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

The correct number of the amparo decision regarding the Cordoba mine is Resolution 078 of 4 March 2015 (Exhibit C-183).

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant notes that the correct number of the amparo decision regarding the Cordoba mine is Resolution 078 of 4 March 2015 (Ex. C-183). Claimant maintains its request for documentation as set forth above and in light of this correction.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 20 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LA POLA filed on 21 February 2011, granted by Resolution No. 104, 6 May 2014:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 24 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LA GRANJA filed on 21 February 2011, granted by Resolution No. 1173, 2011:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 25 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LOS GUADUALES filed on 21 February 2011, granted by Resolution No. 102, 6 May 2014:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 30 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) BAMBU No2 filed on 26 October 2010, granted by Resolution No. 508, 23 May 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 32 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) MINA SIN NOMBRE N.3 filed on 17 September 2011, granted by Resolution No. 199, 23 October 2014:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 44 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LAS RUINAS filed on 9 September 2012, granted by Resolution No. 090, February 2018 (pending notification to the illegal miners):

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 45 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LA NEVERA filed on 9 September 2012, granted by Resolution No. 351, 3 July 2015:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 58 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) ESMERALDA GOLD filed on 20 June 2013, granted by Resolution No. 353, 3 July 2015:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 59 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LA ESCALONA filed on 20 June 2013, granted by Resolution No. 147, 14 March 2017:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 60 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) EL COGOTE filed on 8 October 2013, granted by Resolution No. 076, 4 March 2015:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 61 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LA 29 filed on 22 October 2013, granted by Resolution No. 179, 21 March 2017:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 62 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LA MILENA filed on 31 December 2014, granted by Resolution No. 0077, 4 March 2015:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 64 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) CERCA A BOTADEROS DE LODOS GALÁN 1 filed on 10 March 2015, granted by Resolution No. 180, 21 March 2017:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 65 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LA ESPERANZA 3 filed on 10 March 2015, granted by Resolution No. 146, 14 March 2017:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 66 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LA LUNA filed on 10 March 2015, granted by Resolution No. 160, 14 March 2017:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 68 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) EL CAGUI filed on 26 March 2015, granted by Resolution No. 148, 14 March 2017:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 83 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) EL CAJON filed on 25 May 2016, granted by Resolution No. 20180600034315, 10 August 2018:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 84 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) EL CAÑON filed on 25 May 2016, granted by Resolution No. 2018060032683, 10 August 2018:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 85 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LA FINCA filed on 1 April 2016, granted by Resolution No. 2016060092089, 10 August 2018:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 87 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) LINGOTE GOLD filed on 25 May 2016, granted by Resolution No. 183, 21 March 2017:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 88 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) EL GUAMO filed on 25 May 2016, granted by Resolution No. 20170600040055, 10 August 2018:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 95 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) DIVINO NIÑO filed on 5 August 2016, granted by Resolution No. 2018060032682, 6 April 2018:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent’s objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

See rulings on Request No. 21(1) and 21(2); the same rulings apply with respect to subparts (1) and (2) of the present Request).

With respect to Action No. 97 as referenced in C-68, RPP-140 (EDKE-01) CASA ATRÁS filed on 18 August 2016, granted by Resolution No. 2017060102941, 18 August 2018:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

B. Relevance and materiality:

(1) paragraph reference to submissions

(2) comments

(3) statement concerning custody and control

(1) Claimant’s Memorial ¶ 549 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-68.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 21 mutatis mutandis.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 21, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 52 as referenced in C-69, CHG-081 SARA G (AL LADO IZQUIERDO DE MINA SAN PEDRO) filed on 9 March 2016, granted by Resolution No. 1162, 10 October 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 58 as referenced in C-69, 121-98M, 148-98M, 149-98M Y 165-98M MINA LETICIA (AL LADO DE LA MINA TESORITO) filed on 13 July 2016, granted by Resolution No. 0083, 6 March 2017 (pending final decision):

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 59 as referenced in C-69, CHG-081 MINA EL PROGRESO (ENCIMA DE CAPARROSAL) filed on 11 July 2016, granted by Resolution No. 0086, 22 November 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 60 as referenced in C-69, CHG-081 MINA PALOMERA (ENCIMA DE CAPARROSAL) filed on 11 July 2016, granted by Resolution No. 052, 8 November 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 61 as referenced in C-69, 049-98M Y 070-98M MINA SIN NOMBRE (DIAGONAL A LA MINA ENCIMA DE LA ROCA) filed on 11 July 2016, granted by Resolution No. 084, 6 March 2017 (pending final decision):

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 62 as referenced in C-69, 031-98M MINA PAULA S (MINA 1 CAMINO A LA FLORESTA) filed on 11 July 2016, granted by Resolution No. 085, 6 March 2017 (pending final decision):

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 63 as referenced in C-69, CHG-081 MINA LAGRIMOSA (CERCA DE LA MINA ZORRA) filed on 11 July 2016, granted by Resolution No. 085, 22 November 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

This request is duplicative of Request 90.

Colombia objects to this Request for the Production of Documents for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 67, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

Claimant notes that this request concerns a different mine, and different dates and final decisions for the Resolution No. as set forth in Request No. 90, and is thus not duplicative. Claimant does not request production of duplicate documentation, to the extent there may be overlap.

Claimant repeats its replies to Respondent's objections to this request for the same reasons as set out above with respect to Request No. 67, which apply here mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 66 as referenced in C-69, 041-98M Y102-98M CURUBITAL - MURCIELAGAL filed on 12 August 2016, granted by Resolution No. 560, 12 June 2017 (pending final decision):

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 71 as referenced in C-69, 034-98M BARRANCA 1 filed on 29 October 2010, granted by Resolution No. GTRM 472, 8 June 2011:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 74 as referenced in C-69, 053-98M OCHOA 2 filed on 30 March 2010, granted by Resolution No. 939, 27 December 2010:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 78 as referenced in C-69, 105-98M EL MANGO 1 filed on 28 August 2012, granted by Resolution No. PARM 10, 19 February 2013:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 79 as referenced in C-69, 118-98M ROLITA filed on 29 May 2012, granted by Resolution No. PARM 12, 19 February 2013:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 81 as referenced in C-69, 127-98M TESORITO filed on 15 May 2012, granted by Resolution No. PARM 15, 19 February 2013:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 83 as referenced in C-69, 160-98M TINTILIANA filed on 29 May 2012, granted by Resolution No. PARM 13, 19 February 2013:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 84 as referenced in C-69, 4467 PATACÓN filed on 30 March 2010, granted by Resolution No. GTRM 344, 17 May 2011:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 92 as referenced in C-69, 127-98M FRENTE A TESORITO filed on 23 April 2015, granted by Resolution No. 535, 31 May 2016; Notified 11 June 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 93 as referenced in C-69, 166-98M CANALÓN FRENTE A TORRENTE filed on 23 April 2015, granted by Resolution No. 607, 20 June 2016; Notified 29 July 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 94 as referenced in C-69, 161-98M VENTURA filed on 5 June 2015, granted by Resolution No. 708, 15 July 2016; Notified 29 July 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 95 as referenced in C-69, 4467 PATACÓN filed on 9 June 2015, granted by Resolution No. 518, 26 May 2016; Notified 17 July 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 96 as referenced in C-69, 073-98M (HETJ-33) CUMBA 1 filed on 22 June 2015, granted by Resolution No. 709, 15 July 2016; Notified 29 July 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 97 as referenced in C-69, 014-98M SIN NOMBRE filed on 22 June 2015, granted by Resolution No. 753, 22 July 2016; Notified 22 July 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 99 as referenced in C-69, CHG-081 ENCIMA DE MINA SAN PEDRO (MINA KIKE MELFI) filed on 6 August 2015, granted by Resolution No. 507, 23 May 2016; Notified 17 June 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 100 as referenced in C-69, CHG-081 SIN NOMBRE (DEBAJO DE LA CARRETERA A CIEN PESOS) filed on 13 July 2015, granted by Resolution No. 482, 18 May 2016; Notified 17 June 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 101 as referenced in C-69, CHG-081 SIN NOMBRE (FRENTE A LA MINA VILLONZA 2) filed on 13 July 2015, granted by Resolution No. 506, 23 May 2016 Notified 1 June 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 102 as referenced in C-69, RPP-357 LADO IZQUIERO DE LA CHIQUITA CUATRO filed on 13 July 2015, granted by Resolution No. 723, 15 July 2016; Notified 29 July 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 103 as referenced in C-69, RPP-357 BOCAMINA TORRE 5 filed on 13 July 2015, granted by Resolution No. 704, 15 July 2016; Notified 29 July 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 104 as referenced in C-69, 026-98M SOBRE TINTILIANA filed on 13 July 2015, granted by Resolution No. 706, 15 July 2016; Notified 29 July 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 105 as referenced in C-69, 050-98M PEDRO GRANDE filed on 13 July 2015, granted by Resolution No. 865, 17 August 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 106 as referenced in C-69, 067-98M CUMBA 3 MATURRO filed on 13 July 2015, granted by Resolution No. 711, 15 July 2016; Notified 29 July 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 107 as referenced in C-69, 014-89M LAS VERÓNICAS filed on 19 August 2015, granted by Resolution No. 1163 Y 1164, 10 October 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 108 as referenced in C-69, 134-98M LA LEONA filed on 14 August 2015, granted by Resolution No. 523, 16 May 2016; Notified 17 June 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 110 as referenced in C-69, 152-98M MINA NN (SEGUNDA MINA DEBAJO DE LAS MARINAS) filed on 6 August 2015, granted by Resolution No. 713, 15 July; Notified 29 July 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 111 as referenced in C-69, 050-98M LAS MARINAS filed on 12 November 2015, granted by Resolution No. 1204, 27 October 2016 (pending final decision):

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 112 as referenced in C-69, 091-98M LA EVA Y LA PEÑA filed on 11 December 2015, granted by Resolution No. 864, 17 August 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 114 as referenced in C-69, 065-98M PAULINA MODA filed on 21 January 2016, granted by Resolution No. 1081, 27 October 2016:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 115 as referenced in C-69, CHG-081 MINA DÁVILA filed on 2 September 2016, granted by Resolution No. 088, 6 March 2017:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.

(1) Claimant's Memorial ¶ 544 [statistics as of 6 October 2019]; Counter-Memorial, ¶¶ 132, 136-137; C-69.

(2) Claimant repeats its comments to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

(3) Claimant repeats its statement to Request No. 67 mutatis mutandis.

With respect to Action No. 116 as referenced in C-69, CHG-081 LA RATONERA 2 filed on 2 September 2016, granted by Resolution No. 157, 14 March 2017:

(1) Documents, including internal discussions or analysis as to whether or not to grant a request for an eviction order; and

(2) Documents and internal correspondence demonstrating enforcement efforts of granted eviction order.