What I was pointing out was that if the tribunal thinks that the juristiction issue is nothing more than a delaying tactic then they don't have to schedule a separate hearing and they just lump it into the merits hearing. Usually it is dealt with first; a decision is made on that point and unless the Venezuelan motion is upheld, the hearing continues and the merits issues are then decided.

If however the tribunal thinks that there is an arguable case on the juristiction, then they hear that first, in the possibility that if the motion is upheld, it saves everyone the time and money in preparing the rest of the case that they are not qualified to hear.

I don't know how the crystallex panel will rule on juristriction but you can be sure Venezuela's lawyers will bring it up. If there is a hearing granted specifically on juristriction before the merits are heard then we can be reasonably sure that the panel thought the matter warranted a decision prior to the rest of the case continuing. It does not mean that if there is a separate hearing then it will go against crystallex. It just means that the point was considered to be arguable and not just a delaying tactic.

Hope that clarifies my post.