The primary issue that was the subject of İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi’s Request for Rectification of 29 游行 2016 was whether the majority (Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands) had made clerical, 下条算术或类似的错误 49(2) of the ICSID Convention in the Award by ruling that the confiscation of USD 13.9 万元的机器设备，以收集约美元 3 million in delay penalties was not “过度，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 “真正的价值” of the Claimant’s machinery and equipment and the delay penalties was only USD 1,564,214 (paragraph 375 of the Final Award).
在诉讼过程中, 索赔人提供的 所有设备的初始采购订单, except for a few items of equipment that were over 10 岁，不要求根据土耳其法律，要留哪些收据. 原告的专家也提供了一个 table setting forth the the original purchase price of the machinery and equipment, their import date into Turkmenistan, 原来的购买日期, and references to the exhibits showing the purchase price for each piece of equipment. 总共, 采购订单和报告显示，申请人已经花费了大约美元 13.9 万元购买没收的材料和设备, 这被没收了土库曼斯坦最高法院指令寻求支付美元左右的基础上， 3 万元逾期罚款建设项目, a difference of approximately USD 10 百万. 被强加的逾期罚款的数额是没有争议的, 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), 而被告辩称，折旧，应考虑为机械设备，而不是使用重置价值, 作为索赔的专家争辩, 虽然索赔的专家还曾在最后听证会上提供的折旧数字.
在其最后大奖, 仲裁法庭在分割土库曼斯坦的指令最高法院是否没收美元的问题 13.9 million of machinery and equipment for USD 3 million in Delay Penalties was “过度，因此expropriatory“. 在一个 部分异议卡罗琳拉姆的意见, 她裁定，多数, Veijo Heiskanen和Philippe金沙组成, 曾先不顾记录相对于逾期罚款, 这表明“that Claimant provided sufficient evidence detailing the amount of the inflation of the penalties (USD 1,650,825), 并应考虑到将它们减少到美元 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, 为此被诉人产生任何证据支持其论点, and that Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands had “评估证据，无须考虑均衡双方” (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 亿机械设备约美元 3 在逾期罚款万元并不为过.
该 申请整改 filed by Claimant claimed that the Arbitral Tribunal had made basic math errors in comparing USD 13.9 机械和设备万美元 3 万元逾期罚款, 除了那些由卡罗琳·拉姆说. 尤其是, 仲裁庭, 比较这两个值时, 不正确地扣除美元 1.8 million on the basis of “公司间转账” 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. 索赔人也认为，多数, Veijo Heiskanen和Philippe金沙, 不正确地扣除美元 2.6 million on the basis of fictitious insurance payments, 虽然没有证据已提交答辩表明任何保险金已经取得, 在任何情况下, 没有假设保险报销会 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 机械设备，约万美元 3 在逾期罚款万元并不为过.
Respondent did not take issue with Claimant’s allegations that the Arbitral Tribunal calculations were incorrect in its 对申请人的要求提供Rectitication观察 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 “令人费解.” It responded to Respondent’s arguments and again showed that the Arbitral Tribunal’s subtraction of USD 1.8 million for “公司间转账” 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 万元用于虚构的，未经证实的保险金, 仲裁庭已计算的折旧不当, 执行数学计算不正确由此扣除已经从折旧值未折旧值, 导致该承担的机器设备扣除了负值, 它认为，仲裁庭必须给予机会改正其明显的算术错误.
在其 反驳, 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 在逾期罚款万是数学上正确, 但辩称文章 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 关于索赔人决定 ’ s 请求辅助决策和精馏的奖项 4 十月 2016. 决定, which agrees that the Arbitral Tribunal erred in using the words “较低” for “更高” with respect to the USD 1.8 million in inter-company transfers (paragraph 135), 拒绝重新考虑此扣除的基础上不同的价格为公司间转帐索赔人 ’ s 证据本身不可靠, although it agreed to correct its textual error reversing the words “更高” and “较低“. 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% 初始购买价格将不会被任何假设的保险偿还存在. 仲裁庭另有拒绝分析其运算错误, 其中尚未被质疑答辩.
仲裁庭由段声称其避开故障的算术问题 121 that the “索赔人的索赔没收被驳回，因为法庭认定, 由多数, that the Claimant had ‘failed to prove that the Supreme Court’s Directive was excessive and as such expropriatory.’ Accordingly, 法庭上索赔人的索赔没收决定开启的证据是否的问题之前，法庭建立的最高法院指令有一个expropriatory效果, 那是, 征用是否发生了. 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, 作为计算段的目的 364-76 该奖项是为了使法庭能够确定是否收到的证据证实，最高法院指令可以被描述为是过度, 因此, 作为具有expropriatory效果, 该计算是必然只是指示, 或近似, 并且并不打算提供对资产的任一值或任何接受或不调整的正式估价被法庭认可而言的精确量化.” In other words, 仲裁法庭宣称其美元的比较 13.9 万元被没收的材料和设备，美元 3 million in Delay Penalties was a “定性” decision, 1，而不是严格相比美元的价值 13.9 万元的材料和设备，美元 3 万元逾期罚款.
怎么样, 然后, 没有仲裁法庭在其到达“定性“的决心，最高法院的指令没收约美元 13.9 万元的设备用于支付约美元 3 million in Delay Penalties was not excessive? We will never know, 由于仲裁庭没有解释它如何能做出这样的“定性“判定，而无需实际比较这两个值.
“我在ICSID过程以下Veijo Heiskanen的奖项没有信心, 菲利普·金沙和卡罗琳拉姆,” 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.”
根据 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. 专家们也提出了他们的发现英语, 这是不是他们的母语. 虽然, 任何仲裁庭没收约美元的决定 13.9 亿机械设备, for which uncontested purchase orders had been provided, 为了只支付美元的高度可疑的逾期罚款 3 百万, 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.”