The primary issue that was the subject of İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi’s Request for Rectification of 29 遊行 2016 was whether the majority (Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands) had made clerical, 下條算術或類似的錯誤 49(2) of the ICSID Convention in the Award by ruling that the confiscation of USD 13.9 萬元的機器設備，以收集約美元 3 million in delay penalties was not “過度，因此expropriatory” (para. 375 of the Final Award). Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands reached this decision after making a number of adjustments to the starting value of the confiscated machinery and equipment, in order to find that the difference between the “真正的價值” of the Claimant’s machinery and equipment and the delay penalties was only USD 1,564,214 (paragraph 375 of the Final Award).
在訴訟過程中, 索賠人提供的 所有設備的初始採購訂單, except for a few items of equipment that were over 10 歲，不要求根據土耳其法律，要留哪些收據. 原告的專家也提供了一個 table setting forth the the original purchase price of the machinery and equipment, their import date into Turkmenistan, 原來的購買日期, and references to the exhibits showing the purchase price for each piece of equipment. 總共, 採購訂單和報告顯示，申請人已經花費了大約美元 13.9 萬元購買沒收的材料和設備, 這被沒收了土庫曼斯坦最高法院指令尋求支付美元左右的基礎上， 3 萬元逾期罰款建設項目, a difference of approximately USD 10 百萬. 被強加的逾期罰款的數額是沒有爭議的, although there was a debate concerning whether it was just to impose delay penalties on a number of grounds (for instance imposing delay penalties prior to the completion date of construction projects), 而被告辯稱，折舊，應考慮為機械設備，而不是使用重置價值, 作為索賠的專家爭辯, 雖然索賠的專家還曾在最後聽證會上提供的折舊數字.
在其最後大獎, 仲裁法庭在分割土庫曼斯坦的指令最高法院是否沒收美元的問題 13.9 million of machinery and equipment for USD 3 million in Delay Penalties was “過度，因此expropriatory“. 在一個 部分異議卡羅琳拉姆的意見, 她裁定，多數, Veijo Heiskanen和Philippe金沙組成, 曾先不顧記錄相對於逾期罰款, 這表明“that Claimant provided sufficient evidence detailing the amount of the inflation of the penalties (USD 1,650,825), 並應考慮到將它們減少到美元 1,161,961” (paragraph 18 of Dissenting Opinion). She also found that Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands had reversed the burden of proof concerning such issues as insurance payments, 為此被訴人產生任何證據支持其論點, and that Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands had “評估證據，無須考慮均衡雙方” (paragraph 22 of Dissenting Opinion). She also found that Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands had erred in reaching their ruling that the confiscation of USD 13.9 億機械設備約美元 3 在逾期罰款萬元並不為過.
該 申請整改 filed by Claimant claimed that the Arbitral Tribunal had made basic math errors in comparing USD 13.9 機械和設備萬美元 3 萬元逾期罰款, 除了那些由卡羅琳·拉姆說. 尤其是, 仲裁庭, 比較這兩個值時, 不正確地扣除美元 1.8 million on the basis of “公司間轉賬” by confusing positive and negative numbers, misunderstanding that Respondent had argued that such a deduction should be made (paragraphs 29-37) when this was not the case. 索賠人也認為，多數, Veijo Heiskanen和Philippe金沙, 不正確地扣除美元 2.6 million on the basis of fictitious insurance payments, 雖然沒有證據已提交答辯表明任何保險金已經取得, 在任何情況下, 沒有假設保險報銷會 100% of assets confiscated by a State (paragraphs 38-51) on the basis of their initial purchase price without deductions. Claimant also noted that the Arbitral Tribunal had not accepted the depreciation calculations that had been offered by Claimant’s witness at the final hearing and that it had made obvious calculation errors concerning depreciation itself in order to find that the difference between USD 13.9 機械設備，約萬美元 3 在逾期罰款萬元並不為過.
Respondent did not take issue with Claimant’s allegations that the Arbitral Tribunal calculations were incorrect in its 對申請人的要求提供Rectitication觀察 的 12 可能 2016, but instead argued that the Arbitral Tribunal had not been supplied with sufficient evidence and that the relief that Claimant was seeking in the Request for Rectification went beyond the scope of Article 49(2) of the Convention, since a successful application would result in a reversal of the Arbitral Tribunal’s Final Award.
在其答复, Claimant noted that, 退一步, the majority’s comparison finding no significant difference in value between USD 13.9 million in confiscated machinery and equipment and USD 3 million in Delay Penalties ran counter to common sense and was “令人費解.” It responded to Respondent’s arguments and again showed that the Arbitral Tribunal’s subtraction of USD 1.8 million for “公司間轉賬” was based on a confusion of positive and negative numbers by the Arbitral Tribunal and made no sense. It argued that Respondent’s observations did not justify the deduction of USD 2.6 萬元用於虛構的，未經證實的保險金, 仲裁庭已計算的折舊不當, 執行數學計算不正確由此扣除已經從折舊值未折舊值, 導致該承擔的機器設備扣除了負值, 它認為，仲裁庭必須給予機會改正其明顯的算術錯誤.
在其 反駁, Respondent did not argue that any of the Arbitral Tribunal’s calculations in comparing the value of USD 13.9 million in machinery and equipment with USD 3 在逾期罰款萬是數學上正確, 但辯稱文章 49(2) of the ICSID Convention was narrow and claimed that Claimant was seeking a substantive review of the Final Award.
Veijo Heiskanen仲裁庭, Philippe Sands and Carolyn Lamm issued their 對申請人的要求提供對獎的補充規定和決定整改 4 十月 2016. 決策, which agrees that the Arbitral Tribunal erred in using the words “降低” for “更高” with respect to the USD 1.8 million in inter-company transfers (paragraph 135), 拒絕重新考慮不同的價格公司間劃撥的方式進行索賠人的證據根本不可靠的基礎上，該扣, although it agreed to correct its textual error reversing the words “更高” and “降低“. The Arbitral Tribunal also refused to reconsider its deduction of USD 2.6 million for hypothetical insurance payments and did not respond to Claimant’s point that 100% 初始購買價格將不會被任何假設的保險償還存在. 仲裁庭另有拒絕分析其運算錯誤, 其中尚未被質疑答辯.
仲裁庭由段聲稱其避開故障的算術問題 121 that the “索賠人的索賠沒收被駁回，因為法庭認定, 由多數, that the Claimant had ‘failed to prove that the Supreme Court’s Directive was excessive and as such expropriatory.’ Accordingly, 法庭上索賠人的索賠沒收決定開啟的證據是否的問題之前，法庭建立的最高法院指令有一個expropriatory效果, 那是, 徵用是否發生了. This is a qualitative determination as to the application of the law to the facts; it is not a decision on quantification of compensation for expropriation that the Tribunal has determined to have taken place. 所以, 作為計算段的目的 364-76 該獎項是為了使法庭能夠確定是否收到的證據證實，最高法院指令可以被描述為是過度, 因此, 作為具有expropriatory效果, 該計算是必然只是指示, 或近似, 並且並不打算提供對資產的任一值或任何接受或不調整的正式估價被法庭認可而言的精確量化.” In other words, 仲裁法庭宣稱其美元的比較 13.9 萬元被沒收的材料和設備，美元 3 million in Delay Penalties was a “定性” decision, 1，而不是嚴格相比美元的價值 13.9 萬元的材料和設備，美元 3 萬元逾期罰款.
怎麼樣, 然後, 沒有仲裁法庭在其到達“定性“的決心，最高法院的指令沒收約美元 13.9 萬元的設備用於支付約美元 3 million in Delay Penalties was not excessive? We will never know, 由於仲裁庭沒有解釋它如何能做出這樣的“定性“判定，而無需實際比較這兩個值.
“我在ICSID過程以下Veijo Heiskanen的獎項沒有信心, 菲利普·金沙和卡羅琳拉姆,” said a represenative of Claimant. “The Arbitral Tribunal did not care about justice and was not trying to find a fair result. Ickale could have received a fairer decision by using the Courts of Turkmenistan rather than wasting years in ICSID proceedings and hundreds of thousands of dollars only to receive an award by Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands that makes a mockery of justice.”
根據 Aceris法威廉柯特利, “I was not involved during the written phase of the arbitration when the expert reports were prepared, and the experts’ findings could have been presented more succinctly and in a less confusing manner. 專家們也提出了他們的發現英語, 這是不是他們的母語. 雖然, 任何仲裁庭沒收約美元的決定 13.9 億機械設備, for which uncontested purchase orders had been provided, 為了只支付美元的高度可疑的逾期罰款 3 百萬, and a finding that this is not ‘excessive,’ suggests that that the majority of the Arbitral Tribunal, 至少, did not make any real effort to rule fairly in the arbitration. This is not the only aspect of the final award that can be severely criticized, and I hope that the younger generation of arbitration lawyers and arbitrators will make a far more sincere effort to arrive at a result that comports with justice and that Ickale will seek annulment of the Final Award.”