text: conducted onthebasisofdocuments andothermaterials. "(2)Notwithstanding theprovisions ofparagraph (1)ofthisarticle, ifa partysorequests, thearbitral tribunal may,atanyappropriate stageofthe proceedings, holdhearings forthepresentation ofevidence orfororal argument. -39-"(3)Theparties shallbegivensufficient advance noticeofanyhearing and ofanymeeting ofthearbitrill tribunal forinspection purposes. I.(4)Allstatements, documencs orotherinformation supplied tothearbitral tribunal byonepartyshallbecommunicated totheotherparty. Alsoany expertreportorotherdocument ,onwhichthearbitraltribunal mayrelyin makingitsdecision, shall ~communicated totheparties." Paragraphs (1)and(2) 203.TheCommission notedthatar!ticle 24dealtwiththeissueofthemodeof arbitral proceedings asamatterpfprinciple anddidnotdealwiththeprocedural aspects ofdeciding thatissue. iForexample, thearticle didnotdealwiththe question ofthepointoftimewheinthearbitral tribunal wouldhavetodecideon themodeofthearbitral proceedInqs,Thatmeantthat"thearbitral tribunal was freetodecidethatquestion atqheoutset oftheproceedings, oritcouldpostpone thedetermination ofthemodeof!theproceedings andmakesuchdeterminations in thelightofthedevelopment ofqhecase.Beforesodeciding thearbitral tribunal wouldnormally request thepartieis toexpress theirvieworpossible agreementon. thequestion. Thearticle alsodidnotdealwith,andtherefore didnotlimit,the ~ powerofthearbitral tribunal todecide onthelengthoforalhearings, onthe stageatwhichoralhearings coul~beheld,orOnthequestion whether thearbitral proceedings wouldbeconducted p~rtly onthebasisoforalhearings andpartly on thebasisofdocuments. Itwasnotedthatsuchprocedural decisions weregoverned byarticle 19,including itsparagraph (3). 204.TheCommission wasagreedthatanagreement bytheparties thatoralhearings weretobeheldwasbinding ontqearbitral tribunal. 205.Astothequestion whether ~nagreement bytheparties thattherewouldbeno oralhearings wasalsobinding, different viewswereexpressed. Underoneview, therighttooralhearings wasofsuchfundamental importance thattheparties were notboundbytheiragreement andiapartycouldalwaysrequest oralhearings. Under another view,theagreement oftqeparties thatnooralhearings wouldbeheldwas binding ontheparties butnotonthearbitral tribunal sothatthearbitral tribunal, ifrequested by aparty, hadthediscretion toorderoralhearings. However, theprevailing viewwas'thatanagreedexclusion oforalhearings was binding ontheparties andthea~bitral tribunal. Nevertheless, itwasnotedthat article 19(3),requiring thateachpartyshould begivenafullopportunity to present hiscase,mightinexceptional circumstances provide acompelling reason forholding anoralhearing. It,wasunderstood thatparties who had earlier agreed thatnohearings should beheldwerenotprecluded fromlatermodifying their agreement, andthustoallowapartytorequest oralhearings. 206.TheCommission wasagreedthatwheretherewas noagreement onthemodeofthe proceedings apartyhad arighttooralhearings ifhesorequested. Inthat connection itwasnotedthattheFrenchversion ofparagraph (2)·reflected that viewwhileaccording tootherveisions ofthatparagraph thearbitral tribunal retained thediscretion whether toholdoralhearings evenifrequested by aparty. 207.TheCommission wasalso agr~edthatwheretherewas noagreement onthemode oftheproceedings, and noparty'hadrequested anoralhearing, thearbitral tribunal wasfreetodecidewhetqer toholdoralhearings orwhether the proceedings wouldbeconducted on.thebasisofdocuments andothermaterials. -40-208.TheCommission referred theimplementation ofitsdecisions totheDrafting Group. 209.Duringconsideration ofthesecondsentence ofarticle 24(1),aspresented by theDrafting Group, whichreadasfollows: "However, unlesstheparties have agreedthatnohearings shallbeheld,thearbitral tribunal shall,ifsorequested by apartyatanappropriate stageoftheproceedings, holdsuchhearings", the question wasraisedwhether "atanappropriate stage"shouldrefertotherequest ortotheproceedings. Afterdiscussion theCommission decided torewordthe sentence asfollows: "However, unlesstheparties haveagreedthatnohearings shallbeheld,thearbitral tribunal shallholdsuchhearings atanappropriate stageoftheproceedings, ifsorequested by aparty." Paragraph (3) 210.TheCommission wasagreedthatthewords"forinspection purposes" weremeant toinclude theinspection ofgoods,otherproperty, ordocuments asreferred toin
analysis: The text appears to be related to the regulation of arbitration proceedings, specifically the rules and procedures for conducting arbitration, including the submission of evidence, oral hearings, and communication between parties. The language used is formal and legalistic, indicating that the text is part of a legal or regulatory framework.