PULP MILLS (JUDGMENT) 62 construction and operation of the mill provided by the company to the Uruguayan Government, when these were forwarded to it by the Uruguayan delegation.” (Emphasis in the original.) [Translation by the Court.] 126. Uruguay considers that, under the terms of this “understanding”, the Parties agreed on the approach to be followed in respect of the CMB (ENCE) project, outside CARU, and that there was no reason in law or logic to prevent them derogating from the procedures outlined in the 1975 Statute pursuant to an appropriate bilateral agreement. The said “understanding”, according to Uruguay, only covered the transmission to CARU of the Environmental Management Plans for the construction and operation of the (CMB) ENCE mill. It supposedly thereby puts an end to any dispute with Argentina regarding the procedure laid down in Article 7 of the 1975 Statute. Lastly, Uruguay maintains that the “understanding” of 2 March 2004 on the (CMB) ENCE project was later extended to include the Orion (Botnia) project, since the PROCEL water quality monitoring plan put in place by CARU’s Subcommittee on Water Quality to implement that “understanding” related to the activity of “both plants”, the CMB (ENCE) and Orion (Botnia) mills, the plural having been used in the title and text of the Subcommittee’s report. 127. Argentina, for its part, maintains that the “understanding” between the two Ministers of 2 March 2004 was intended to ensure compliance with the procedure laid down by the 1975 Statute and thus to reintroduce the CMB (ENCE) project within CARU, ending the dispute on CARU’s jurisdiction to deal with the project. Argentina claims that it reiterated to the organs within CARU that it had not given up its rights under Article 7, although it accepted that the dispute between itself and Uruguay in this respect could have been resolved if the procedure contemplated in the “understanding” of 2 March 2004 had been brought to a conclusion. According to Argentina, however, Uruguay never transmitted the required information to CARU as it undertook to do in the “understanding” of 2 March 2004. Argentina also denies that the “understanding” of 2 March 2004 was extended to the Orion (Botnia) mill ; the reference to both future plants in the PROCEL plan does not in any way signify, in its view, the renunciation of the procedure laid down by the 1975 Statute. 128. The Court first notes that while the existence of the “understanding” of 2 March 2004, as minuted by CARU, has not been contested by the Parties, they differ as to its content and scope. Whatever its specific designation and in whatever instrument it may have been recorded (the CARU minutes), this “understanding” is binding on the Parties, to the extent that they have consented to it and must be observed by them in good faith. They are entitled to depart from the procedures laid down by the 1975 Statute, in respect of a given project pursuant to an appropriate bilateral agreement. The Court recalls that the Parties disagree on whether 52