14 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND FACTS 1-24 OF THE CASE A. Legal framework B. CMB (ENCE) Project C. Orion (Botnia) mill II. SCOPE OF THE COURT’S JURISDICTION III. THE ALLEGED BREACH OF PROCEDURAL OBLIGATIONS A. The links between the procedural obligations and the substantive obligations B. The procedural obligations and their interrelation 25-47 26-27 28-36 37-47 48-66 67-158 71-79 80-122 1. The nature and role of CARU 2. Uruguay’s obligation to inform CARU 3. Uruguay’s obligation to notify the plans to the other party 112-122 C. Whether the Parties agreed to derogate from the procedural obligations set out in the 1975 Statute 123-150 1. The “understanding” of 2 March 2004 between Argentina and Uruguay 2. The agreement setting up the High-Level Technical Group (the GTAN) D. Uruguay’s obligations following the end of the negotiation period IV. SUBSTANTIVE OBLIGATIONS A. Burden of proof and expert evidence B. Alleged violations of substantive obligations 1. The obligation to contribute to the optimum and rational utilization of the river (Article 1) 2. The obligation to ensure that the management of the soil and woodland does not impair the régime of the river or the quality of its waters (Article 35) 3. The obligation to co-ordinate measures to avoid changes in the ecological balance (Article 36) 4. The obligation to prevent pollution and preserve the aquatic environment (Article 41) (a) Environmental Impact Assessment (i) The siting of the Orion (Botnia) mill at Fray Bentos (ii) Consultation of the affected populations 84-93 94-111 125-131 132-150 151-158 159-266 160-168 169-266 170-177 178-180 181-189 190-266 203-219 207-214 215-219 4