With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the abundant briefs and documentation submitted by the Parties as well as their oral submissions during the Hearing eloquently evidences that their disputes do not relate to the creation, substance or contents, title, scope or extinction of immovable property rights .... ... The Arbitral Tribunal must then reject Consorcio Barr’s arguments refuting the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction based on Article[] 47 of the PIL Act. Award ¶¶ 17 & 19. Although the Venezuelan courts held that the arbitration provisions were invalid because the dispute involved immovable property rights, Consorcio waived its right to reassert this position in court once it submitted to an arbitration in which the very same issue was in dispute. Slaney v. Int'l Amateur Athletic Fed’n, 244 F.3d 580, 591 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The arbitrability of the issue was left to

A: holding that party seeking to avoid effect of arbitral award on basis of lack of agreement to arbitrate was estopped to do so under the convention where she freely participated in the arbitration and her claims were already adjudged in arbitration decision
B: holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added
C: recognizing that in reviewing ruling on motion to compel arbitration we first determine whether party seeking arbitration established existence of arbitration agreement
D: holding that once the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement the trial court must compel arbitration
A.