...[W]e wish to raise two concerns...1. [T]he reasoning summarized...does not clearly explain the denial of CCSI’s Application...The Tribunal’s reference to these factors could be made with respect to most applications to participate as amicus curiae in proceedings brought under an investment treaty. More importantly, neither the fact that the disputing Parties are represented by distinguished international law firms, nor that they have addressed “every aspect of the case,” says anything conclusive about whether all relevant perspectives, including those on crucial questions of treaty interpretation,have been covered in the submissions filed by the disputing Parties...2. The Tribunal’s approach appears to discount the relevance of submissions addressing legal issues. For the reasons outlined...we respectfully submit that we are troubled by, and disagree with, the approach adoptedby the Tribunal in its rejection of CCSI’s Application. CCSI is, however, pleased that the Tribunal has accepted DHUMA and Dr. López’s Application, and we look forward to the Tribunal’s due consideration of our colleagues’ Submission...