conduct of such entities is considered an act of the State when undertaken in the governmental capacity granted to it under the internal law. …. The 1974 Petroleum Law of Iran explicitly vests in NIOC ‘the exercise and ownership right of the Iranian nation on the Iranian Petroleum Resources.” 27. On the other hand, in the more recent case of Helnan International A/S vs. The Arab Republic of Egypt, Case No. ARB 05/19, 2006 an ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) Tribunal considered a challenge by the Respondent to the its jurisdiction on the ground that the actions of the Egyptian Company for Tourism and Hotels (EGOTH), the domestic entity whose acts were in issue in that case, were not attributable to Egypt given that, despite the entity having been within the ownership of the Egyptian Government’, its administration allegedly remained independent of the Government. The Tribunal noted that the claimant had convincingly demonstrated that the entity in issue was ‘under the close control of the State’ in the following aspects: a. “The purpose of EGOTH is to ‘contribute to the development of national economy in its field of activity and through its subsidiaries companies within the framework of the public policy of the State’ (article 2.2 of the internal law); b. EGOTH’s memorandum and articles of association are reviewed by the State Council (article 11); c. EGOTH’s general assembly is headed by the Chairman of the Holding Company’s board of directors. Moreover, the Minister exercises administrative and executive powers on the Holding Company; d. Funds of EGOTH are public funds; e. The Manager and Director of EGOTH may be imprisoned if he/ she does not distribute State’s shares of profits (Article 49.3)”. REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 15