24. The question then would be whether the Commission, though not a de jure organ of the State, was nonetheless empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority such as would render the Respondent culpable therefor under Article 5 of the ILC Articles or at all. For ease of reference Article 5 reads: “The conduct of a person or entity which is not an organ of the State under article 4 but which is empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law, provided the person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance.” 25. A review of case law on Article 5 is instructive. In Noble Ventures Inc. vs. Romania (supra), SOF/ APAPS were held to have exercised elements of governmental authority because the Tribunal found no legal distinction between SOF/ APAPS on the one hand, and a governmental ministry on the other hand, when either entities had been expressly designated by the Romanian Privatisation Law as an empowered public institution for purposes of the country’s privatization program. Thus both SOF and APAPS were found to have been clearly charged with representing the Romanian State in the privatization process. 26. In the earlier case of Phillips Petroleum Co. Iran vs. Islamic Republic of Iran (supra) the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal had given similar consideration to the express provisions of Iran’s internal law in determining whether Iran was responsible for the expropriation of the claimant’s goods when it allegedly took the said claimant’s property interests through the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). The Tribunal observed: “International law recognizes that a State may act through organs or entities not part of its formal structure. The REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 14