text: article 20(2),andthatthatshould be·made clearinthetext.Subject tothat modification, paragraph (3) was adopted. Paragraph (4) 211.TheCommission agreedwiththefirstsentence ofparagraph (4)thatall documents supplied tothearbitral tribunal byoneparty,regardless oftheir nature, hadtobecommunicated totheotherparty. However, theCommission was agreedthatinthesecondsentence ofparagraph (4)itshould be made clearthat suchdocuments asresearch material prepared orcollected bythearbitral tribunal didnothavetobecommunicated totheparties. TheDrafting Groupwasinvited to consider whether thatresultshould beachieved bydeletion ofthewords"orother document". * * * Article 25.Default ofaparty 212.Thetextofarticle 25asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "Unless otherwise agreed bytheparties, if,without showing sufficient cause, "(a)theclaimant failstocommunicate hisstatement ofclaimin accordance witharticle 23(1),thearbitral proceedings shallbe terminated; "(b)therespondent failstocommunicate hisstatement ofdefence in accordance witharticle 23(1),thearbitral tribunal shallcontinue the proceedings without treating suchfailure asanadmission ofthe claimant's allegations; "(c)anypartyfailstoappearatahearing ortoproduce documentary evidence, thearbitral tribunal maycontinue theproceedings andmakethe awardontheevidence beforeit." 213.TheCommission agreedthatthetextofarticle 25should makeitclearthatin orderforthepartyindefault toescapetheconsequences ofarticle 25,heshould showtothearbitral tribunal sufficient causeforhisfailure toactasrequired. -41- ..Itwasthought thatthetextwasalready sufficiently clearthatthesufficient causeforthedelayhadtoexistbeforethetimetheaction wasdue.However, as tothepointoftimewhensufficient causewastobe shown tothearbitral tribunal, itwasthought that,although itwasclearfrolnthearticle thatthe question whether therewassuffi~ient causeforthefailure hadtobe.settled beforethearbitral tribunal decided on aconsequence ofdefault, adel:initibn ofa pointoftimeinthetextwould ~edifficult andwouldunnecessarily interfere with thediscretion ofthearbitral tribunal toassessthecausefordelayandtoextend theperiodoftimewhenthepartymustcommunicate astatement orproduce evidence. 214.Itwassuggested thatsubparagraph (b)shouldnotbeinterpreted asmeaning thatthearbitral tribunal would Ihavenodiscretion astohowtoassessthecause ofthefailure tocommunicate thestatement ofdefence asrequired andthatit wouldbeprecluded fromdrawing inferences fromsuchfailure. TheCommission was agreedthatthecorrect interpretation should be made clearinsubparagraph (b) by usinganexpression suchas"without treating suchfailure initself•••", 215.Aproposal was made torestrict thediscretion ofthearbitral tribunal in subparagraph (c)byobliging ittocontinue thearbitral proceedings iftheparty notindefault sorequested. TheCommission didnotadopttheproposal onthe groundthatanobligation tocontinue thearbitral proceedings mightbeseenasa restriction ofthediscretion ofthearbitral tribunal inassessing whether there wassufficient causeforapart.yjsfailure toappearatahearing ortoproduce documentary evidence. 216.TheCommission adopted arti~le 25,subject totheamendments totheopening wordsofthearticle andtosubparagraph (b),whichwerereferred totheDrafting Group. * * * Article 26.Expertappointed byarbitral tribunal 217.Thetextofarticle 26asconsidered bytheCommission wasasfollows: "(1)Unlessotherwise agree~ bytheparties, thearbitral tribunal "(a)mayappoint oneormoreexperts toreporttoitonspecific issues tobedetermined bythearbitral tribunal; "(b)mayrequire apartYtogivetheexpert anyrelevant information or toproduce, ortoprovlide accessto,anyrelevant documents, goodsor otherproperty forhisinspection. "(2)Unlessotherwise agree~ bytheparties, ifapartysorequests orifthe arbitral tribunal considers itnecessary, theexpertshall,afterdelivery of hiswritten ororalreport, participate inahearing wheretheparties have
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the rules and procedures for arbitral tribunals, specifically in the context of international arbitration. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a focus on legal and procedural matters rather than specific policy areas like economic development or health.