28. The Tribunal, nonetheless, held that all the elements of state control demonstrated above were not sufficient to conclude that EGOTH’s conduct was attributable to Egypt, and cited with approval the following position by Crawford, J, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, ‘Introduction, Text and Commentaries’, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p.100: “The fact that an entity can be classified as public or private according to the criteria of a given legal system, the existence of a greater or lesser State participation in its capital or, more generally, in the ownership of its assets, the fact that it is not subject to executive control – these are not decisive criteria for the purpose of attribution of the entity’s conduct to the State. Instead, article 5 (of the ILC Articles) refers to the true common feature, namely that these entities are empowered, if only to a limited extent or in a specific context, to exercise specific elements of governmental authority.” (Emphasis ours) 29. The Tribunal thus negated the structural form of an entity as a basis for determining whether it did, in fact, exercise elements of governmental authority; in preference for the core feature of Article 5, namely, the empowerment of such entity to exercise governmental authority. We do respectfully agree with that conclusion. 30. However, its foregoing findings notwithstanding, the Tribunal then went ahead to deduce EGOTH to have been ‘an active operator in the privatization of the tourism industry on behalf of the Egyptian Government’ and held: “Even if EGOTH has not been officially empowered by law to exercise elements of governmental authority, its actions within the privatization process are attributable to the Egyptian State.” REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 16