Claimants were instructed to appear in person in order to file a claim.

Noting also that at the time of filing, the secretariat and the claimants were not aware that the consolidation would have consequences regarding the payment of the claim and that had separate claims been filed rather than a consolidated claim, the claimants would have been paid in full by mid 2003,

The partnership agreement referenced in the court documents is signed by the Kuwaiti claimant's husband and specifically refers to the business that the Kuwaiti claimant claimed for in her claim.

However, 14 of these claimants filed duplicative claims in the bedoun programme, reducing the number of claims filed by such claimants to 29,051.

However, 11 of these claimants filed duplicative claims in the bedoun programme, reducing the number of claims filed by such claimants to 387.

However, 10 of these claimants filed duplicative claims in the bedoun programme, reducing the number of claims filed by such claimants to 1,436.

The monitoring and assessment claims of Iran that were awarded funding in the first F4 instalment and are relevant to claim No. 5000286 are claim Nos. 5000343, 5000344, 5000347, 5000383, 5000420, 5000425, 5000427 and 5000428.

The inability to obtain a claim form is a satisfactory explanation for failure to file a claim.

One thousand one hundred and forty five claims in the fourth instalment of category C claims are not recommended for payment.

During that time, notifications were issued in respect of 28,911 claims, representing per cent of the total claims population, to elicit further information concerning the claimants' reasons for late filing.

Claims received

Iraq further objects to Saudi Arabia's use of oil contamination levels as a means for quantifying the extent of damage, pointing out that exposure is not considered sufficient to demonstrate injury .

With respect to the D1 departure claims, the Panel noted that the data indicated that claimants in this instalment claimed for this loss type more frequently than claimants in the regular claims programme and had higher average and median claimed amounts and higher average and median recommended awards.

The Panel notes that the Claimant does not seek claim preparation costs at the present time.

Concerning the issue of duplicate claims, the secretariat indicated that it was aware of the risk of duplicate claims from the outset of claims processing and took steps to identify and eliminate such claims during the course of claims processing.

Observing that in the course of claims processing, a number of category C , D and E competing claims were identified where two or more claimants claimed for the losses of the same business or company,

The Panel notes that a number of these claimants did not appear for interview, while those who did appear were unable to explain why the remaining evidence on their claim files was virtually identical to that of other claimants.

Iran, therefore, could have included these claim units in the submissions that it filed within these deadlines.

Others stated that claimants contacted them through word of mouth.

This claim unit was deferred from the second instalment of F4 claims.

Noting also that the failure of these first in time competing claimants to return the overpayments has resulted in a situation where second in time competing claimants have ongoing competing claims related suspensions on payments,

At its June 2005 session, the Governing Council established a final deadline of 30 September 2006 for submitting Governments with currently unlocated claimants to locate such claimants and to inform the secretariat of any claimant who was located so that the claimant could receive payment of his or her compensation award.

At times the claim preparers appeared to be more familiar with the claims than the claimants.

In the view of the Panel, this should involve the services of a qualified senior epidemiologist.

Of these claims, the Panel recommends awards of compensation for two claims, while no awards are recommended for the remaining 16 claims.

The secretariat reviewed the C1 (money) claims of these 15 claimants in accordance with the Panel's guidelines and noted that the C1 claims failed to meet the criteria for compensability.

During the review of the stand alone claims in this instalment, one instance of a related category C claim was identified where a category D claimant had already received an award for the company's losses.

Look, nobody believes in a press agent, Temple, if he makes claims he can't produce.

One is an inability to obtain a claim form.

One claim in the sixth instalment was found to be a duplicate of a claim awarded compensation in the fifth instalment.

The awards for these category A claims should be reduced to the amounts appropriate to the proper status of the claims.

The award for this category A claim should be reduced to the amount appropriate to the proper status of the claim.

The awards for these category A claims should be reduced to the amounts appropriate to the proper status of the claims.

The awards for these category A claims should be reduced to the amount appropriate to the proper status of the claims.

As of the date it submitted its Claim, the Claimant states that it was unable to have access to its funds.

A total of 37 confirmed matches were identified, which related either to claims filed by the same claimant within the bedoun programme or to claims filed by the same claimant in different claim categories.

The individual claimant whose claim had been identified as potentially overlapping with the E4 claim provided additional evidence and claimed for losses in addition to those losses claimed by the E4 claimant.

Third F4 instalment, claim No. 5000450 and fourth F4 instalment, claim Nos. 5000454 and 5000466.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012259 the claimant seeks compensation of USD 4,930,795 for business losses.

The Panel notes that the claim for cancelled Kuwaiti dinars is significantly larger than similar claims the regular category D claims programme.

The fourthsecond group of overlapping claims initially consisted of E4 claims related to 39seven category C claims and 24 category C and D claims.

These claims lack either the claimant's signature or evidence of authority to act on the part of the individual who filed the claim on behalf of the claimant.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3011224 the claimant asserted, in addition to her own losses, a salary loss on behalf of her husband.

First F4 instalment, claim No. 5000405.

As the D1 Panel is not mandated to review claims of corporate entities, these losses were severed from the category D claims, and transferred to category E4 .