(a) finds that the Panel did not err in characterizing the measure at issue as a “technical regulation” within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement;

(b) finds that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of the phrase “treatment no less favourable” in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement; reverses the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.374 and 8.1(a) of the Panel Report, that the US “dolphin-safe” labelling provisions are not inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement; and finds instead that the US “dolphin-safe” labelling provisions are inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement;

(c) finds that the Panel erred in concluding, in paragraphs 7.620 and 8.1(b) of the Panel Report, that it has been demonstrated that the measure at issue is more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil the United States' legitimate objectives, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create; and therefore reverses the Panel's finding that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement;

(d) rejects Mexico's claim that the Panel erred in finding that the United States' objective of “contributing to the protection of dolphins, by ensuring that the US market is not used to encourage fishing fleets to catch tuna in a manner that adversely affects dolphins” is a legitimate objective within the meaning of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement;

[…]