On December 2018, the Prague Rules were launched. These rules aim to be an alternative upon the IBA Guidelines to allow the arbitral tribunal to have more control over the process. The Prague Rules sought to be more restrictive, imposing limitations on the taking of evidence; however, there is no reason to be alarmed. Regarding most of the evidentiary matters, there is less rigidity than what could initially be thought: the witnesses may not attend to the hearing, unless a party insists, there are no hearings, unless the parties request it; there is no expert appointed by the parties, unless the parties want it.
Basically, the Prague Rules are not so different from the IBA Guidelines, as it might seem from a first reading. It seems that the drafters of the Prague Rules sought to protest against the IBA Guidelines, but this was moderated in the final version.
Given the result of the Prague Rules, we believe that it was not necessary to demonize the IBA Rules on the basis of issues that seem more ideological than technical. After all, the Rules of the IBA raised a probative “revolution” that was worthwhile, unlike the Bolshevik revolution.