 Thank you, Simon, for your presentation. Just to remind me that as a huge Spanish flex, it's a very unpleasant situation. And it also raised me that we have a lot of free-will challenges. Yes. It's part of the strategy of the party. It's kind of where we're able to not to serve the CEO of the board. We are also facing this kind of challenge. So my duty here is to discuss how can we avoid bad architecture, including wrong architecture through the pitfall. I'd like to make a step back and just present to you how do I see the, what is the national landscape for the national commercial education. And of course, coming from Brazil, I quote, you're packing a deep pack. And you remind our president, say, you'll be able to assume that the South is quite a different practice. It's a very large practice of artificial education in the South. But it's slightly different from what you have here. Well, what's the concept? The concept is that when the case arrives, there is a discussion between what's really happening in the case and, of course, the interpretation of the different sets of rules that interact with the facts. And of course, the contract, the usage practice, the applicable law for the merits, the situation rules of the sets of rules. Sometimes they are graveled with free-born, different applicable laws for different parts of the contract. The more components are, more difficult is to understand what the law is for the specific situation. So this is the body field. And what happens in practice? You practice that everything, every piece of fact, every piece of evidence, is challenged by the parties. So you have a good mess. And this happens in almost all the cases. And it's more complex in international education than in the West because, of course, you have the applicable law that sometimes is different from the case of the applicable practice for form. You have different uses that are applicable because you have local users, you have international users. You have, more importantly, a bunch of cultural aspects that intersect that are driven by who is working the case, who the players are. So, in principle, you have their trade with the lawyer, the parties, and the institution. They have all their different nationalities. And this means that they have different mindsets. So it's absolutely different, a case that is where the lawyers are from international, English or American law firms for case where you have French or Brazilian or Korean law firms working because the lawyer himself, they have their bias, their system of law, they wait for the war. Well, the way to proceed the case and to design the case for the arbitrators is different. You have also the different backgrounds of the arbitrators. You have arbitrators that are practitioners, arbitrators who are scholars. Although they don't have legal training. A lot of cases in construction, they have engineers working as arbitrators. In cases of financial agreements, not to come to have some of this from the industry. But more importantly, what you really have is different conceptions of arbitration, how to handle arbitration, how the tribunal interacts, how the parties shall behave when the case. So it's not important when we are in an international situation, it's not important. Sometimes it's very bad outcomes. And each of these players have a different mission. So of course, the arbitrators, the main mission is to conduct the proceeding with the official and the war, which means the efficient style of course effective, means flexibility to include the parties legitimate expectations. It also means to focus on the development, giving some kind of speed, some direction to the proceedings towards a final war, getting out of the slam of exchange of documents, discovery, written statements, hearings and so on. And with all this respecting the due process of law. But it's also the mission of the arbitrators to end a fair decision on the merits. I think most of the parties expect to have a fair decision. And then for doing that in the international commercial arbitration landscape, they have to understand and consider the different rules that may be applied. Contract the usages, the applicable law. And all of these will affect of course their reputation. The mission of the lawyers is a big difference. They want to win the case, no matter what. And that's very important because what we see in practice, not in the events, because in the events, most of the people start saying, well, what you'd like to have in the arbitration place, but in fact, in the concrete situations, you see very competitive and aggressive litigators working in arbitration. So there's not much room for courtesy. All the courtesy is only a rhetorical thing. What happens in the case, it's a shock and sometimes very aggressive. Presentation from the lawyers. And we see, why do you think we have the guidelines now for ethics part of the presentation for lawyers? It's because in fact, what we see a lot of times are witnesses that are lying, documents that are being changed, manufacturing evidence, challenging decisions by only two great time, requiring a number of expertise, not to take time, make confusion. So it's a one. So what is important to understand that the outcome of any international commercial depends a lot on the combination of these factors that we have just spoken about. If you have a tribunal, that is a criminal law from the only criminal law arbitrators. It's very different from a tribunal of a civil law background. So if you have English law firms working and you have civil law firms working, it's a different outcome. So it's very hard to say if arbitration is a very secure environment because the final decision will rely a lot on the combination of these aspects. How is the outcome of the case presented? Who are the arbitrators that are going to decide? How is the institution interfering in the case? So in this context, choosing wrong arbitrators might engender serious risk. And this is also one of the reasons that explain why you have a scope level for the case. Because when you are choosing an arbitrator and you see that the case complex, that the parties are going to be aggressive, you have to have someone that knows how to handle this situation. Not only a perspective of assuring that the due process of law will be observed, but also the course of the case. You do also understand the users of the case, the standard context, the practice of the context. There are not so many people like this. So if you want a case of, let's take an example of emanating transaction, are you going to choose a score or are you going to choose a practitioner? And if your case is more theoretical case, out of the contract, then you're going to a scholar, probably, not a practitioner. If you want to apply the contract, you're going to a practitioner. And how do you find information about who is going to decide what the measure is? And you don't have it in the neighbor. So that's why when you have experience with some kind of arbitrator, arbitrator's knowledge in arbitration culture, in arbitration usage, unknowns the merits of the case. This person creates a repetition that's going on and on and it's being applied again. And that's why it's also very hard for a person to go outside this clue. Because how can you have a case if you are applying it? It's always the most important case you should have. How can you stick to the fact, let's try someone new. You have never had a case in a certificate. It won't work. It's very hard for the client to accept. So of course, there are nuances in this. There are a different possibilities. But the road choices are this one. I choose arbitration because I know it very well. Because someone from my institution, because it's famous and because it's the worst case, because it's partial arbitrator. And this is very common. Let's choose someone because actually this person will advocate in my, in favor of my position in the tribunal. And arbitrators are not the smartest guy in the world. They're not the most stupid ones. So when they're in a tribunal and we see that a court arbitrator is slightly or explicitly partial, what happens? The other two, they close themselves and decide to run the case without the participation of the third law. That happens very frequently when you see this situation. So one experienced arbitrator knows that he cannot do that because this will also affect his reputation. In the next tribunal, the other arbitrator will say, that's not the point here because he's too partial. We cannot have this person in the tribunal. And there are people that just went through the arbitration career, arbitrated career, because of this. He started working one, two, three, four cases and then the reputation is so bad that no one wants to follow him anymore. And it's bad for the client because the other arbitrator will decide the case and all. And sometimes the case of this client, of this party, will not be heard, will be even more difficult to be heard because more arbitration is being so explicitly and favor of this party. So, and personal knowledge, I mean, it's not important. It's not really important because in Brazil we have a small community of arbitrators and lawyers that live in the case. We all have a lot of cases. I have, well, it's as many cases as arbitrary and 10 cases as council right now. And I'll probably have a back, back, about 300 case. But we never choose someone because we know this person. It's not important. The person will decide the case because he's convinced or not, persuaded or not of the case. So personal knowledge, if you think that someone is going to decide in your favor because he knows, he or she knows you, it's a wrong criteria. Someone from my jurisdiction, it's also a very wrong parameter because if I have a case, and that's happened very much and that people doing business like in Brazil and foreign companies, they say, okay, that's the point. I'm from the case, so let me upon a really sharp trade. But graphical law is Brazil law. And then there be trade, it's also outside the dialogue of what's going on because he or she doesn't know how the law interferes in the case. If you take a construction case for instance, you have a lot of public policy interfering in the case. You have an instrumented law, labor law, tax law, real estate law interfering in the case and it will affect the outcome of the case. And a foreign arbitrator, or someone that is not knowledgeable in the last applicable law, will not be able to have a war in this case. So we have to take care of this issue. Famous arbitrators, the problem of famous arbitrators is bad. The two famous ones. Sometimes they don't seem, they need the help of the lawyers to decide. So they decide all along on the aspect that they think it's the correct decision. And there are some literature about this, but now people are complaining and complaining because they're so experienced. But they say the best decision of this case is this one, regardless of the law, the contract, the usage, and so forth. That's my position. Since I'm so famous and so I'm so distributed, that's my view. And we have some challenges and we move on towards awards at the end because of this kind of situation. So we have to take care of it. The risk, of course, of choosing the wrong arbitrations are to have wrongful and fair decisions. Waste of time of money because the decisions can be challenged and decided on board. And of course, the loss of credibility, not only of the arbitrator, but most importantly, from the international commercial system. It's a system that is based in trust because the whole of our system. If you have wrongful decisions based not on the merits of the case but based on the applicable law and the contract, this kind of things, it will weaken the system, the whole system. So, I think the first, the most important argument for choosing arbitration is that each case requires good thinking about it. The French have an expression that is, not be charged for nothing, it means that the arbitration is only as good as the arbitrator is. So maybe if you have one decision to make, a correct decision to make during a case is to choose the right arbitration. But there is not one arbitrated that fits all the situations. For every case, you have to re-consider a lot of different criteria. One of these criteria is, what's the ground for your case? Are it your case based on the law, on the contract, in usage? And that's very important because, as I was telling you, if your case is based on the law, you might look for a score because there are some times it's very common that the law is different from the contract itself. Who prevents, what prevents the law or the contract? It's an issue to decide a case by case. You may say, come a lot of revisions, take the contract and see the law, you have to integrate both, but there are things that are public points. So we have case law, now in Brazil, of the case that concerns corruption because of the car wash operation. And the state, and the state-owned companies that are all arguing that the contract is moving towards. So it's a very theoretical decision and it's outside the contract, no matter what the contract says. So what kind of arbitration do you want? You have also to consider what's the other part of ground because when you're choosing an arbitrator, you have to think, who the other part is going to choose? Because they're going to interact and somehow you want the arbitrator that you are appointing because the belief that this person is more clean to understand or be expected will prevail, right? Police will be heard and have a word in the tribunal. But then you consider, well, the other part is going to choose a big shot. It's going to choose a foreign, a foreign arbitrator. And then you make your step also depending on the party you might be in. You have to consider if you have a strong case or a weakened case. Most likely you'll always have a mixed case because there are so many issues in a complex case that you're not going to be able to resolve. But you have to understand where exactly you want to make your point. So what's the right person that will perceive this point? So you also want to decide if you want to have a domestic or international approach in your case. And for instance, you have to have a case that's the law, the applicable law is New York law. But let's apply a Brazilian one. It's the opposite I had just said. You don't choose enough for someone that doesn't know the applicable law. But maybe that's your industry. I don't want to apply New York law. The substantive law of the conference is New York law. But I don't want to apply. The fact that the contract was performed in Brazil and have a lot of Brazilian issues interfering in the contract, that's the point of Brazilian lawyer or Brazilian scholar. So all this is a strategy, right? All this is a strategy. So that's why at this moment you have to decide and usually if you are the plaintiff, even before filing the request for arbitration, you are already thinking and discussing and sharing with the clients the names, the possibilities, the ways of the name of arbitration. And that's why it's a claim. I think that's the main reason why it's a claim. Not because we go to conferences, not because we publish articles. It's because the parties and the lawyers that this person has will understand your case and you'll be able to have a certain influence in the tribunal because there is no such a thing of totally independent and impartial of the court. In practice, what happens that the court what he or she tells that he brings the main arguments that the party who has a point of dispersion, to the knowledge and to the discussion, it doesn't mean that he will agree with the party who appoints a hero. But at least you bring this argument and we'll discuss. If you have someone that you think that we will agree with your point of view, this is the perfect attitude, it's independent. It's not connected with you, it has credibility. And you persuade them of your argument. So bring that voice inside the tribunal. That's the choice. And also it's the trend now in the national arbitration, also in the national arbitration, that the parties have a voice in choosing the chairman of the tribunal. It's not anymore as it used to be until five years ago that the two court arbitrators would solely decide who the chairman is. Right now, the court arbitrators, the parties, they discuss with the court arbitrators. And even there are leads that are presented to the parties. So the parties have a voice in deciding who the chairman is. And that's I think a very fair trend because in the end of the day, the chairman is the most important attitude because it can have decision two against one. And also the chairman is the one who lies, the one who is right in decisions, who handles a lot of documents, exchange decisions, a lot of decisions, interim decisions, really proceeding. So it's very fair that the parties can have a voice in who the court arbitrator is. Mauricio, I'll give you a couple, two minute one. A couple of minutes. Thank you. So the last availability of engagement there after the tribunal, I included engagement because all arbitrators say they are available. No matter if they have one case or if they have 100 cases, they all say we are available for your case. But the most important thing is the engagement because sometimes we are discussing from case to case, we have arbitrators or arbitrators who have one or two cases, they don't care. They don't participate, they have other things to do in life. They are scholars, they are writing or they are practitioners, they are billing hours and they don't care about the case. So the most important correctness you want is an engagement of the application to read everything and to participate in the tribunal. That's the most important goal. That was the point I wanted to do. Thank you very much. Thank you.