With respect to the claims in this instalment, the Panel notes that in some cases the only credible evidence of the claimant's ownership of the business is either a pre or post invasion attestation from the licence holder attesting to the claimant's ownership of the business.

The Court held the wording to be sufficiently broad to include tort claims, thus concluding for the power of the arbitral tribunal to award damages in tort.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012210 the claimant, who was 22 years old at the time of the invasion, asserted tangible property and profit losses totalling USD 5.6 million for his auto repair shop in Kuwait.

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.

The affirmation is provided when the claimant or his or her authorized representative signs the claim.

Three of the claims in this instalment include a claim for what the Panel considers to be the individual claimant's equity interest in a company.

The claim form contains an affirmation by the claimant that he or she suffered direct losses as a result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and has not previously filed a claim with the Commission.

This claimant seeks compensation in the amount of USD 171,000,600 for D8 D9 business losses allegedly sustained by his unincorporated business as a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Some claims in the fourth instalment lacked either (a) the claimant's signature affirming the information provided in the claim and the losses being claimed, or (b) evidence of authority on the part of the individual who filed the claim on behalf of the claimant.

The Claimant states that, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, it evacuated its diplomats and temporarily closed its embassy in Kuwait City.

Subsequently, in response to claim development, the individual claimant stated that he had no ownership interest in the company, and that his claim relating to the company was submitted in error by his claim preparer.

The Governing Council determined in decision 123 that a claim can only be found to be a stand alone claim if the claimant first demonstrates that he or she had the authority to act on behalf of the Kuwaiti company in filing a claim.

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

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 Panel noted that several of the auditors had included pre invasion client lists in support of their claims.

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

The Republic of Croatia is therefore of the opinion that the elaboration of the order of precedence in which such claims could be filed shall depend on clarification of the provision concerning the right to reparation, as well as the establishment of legal certainty in respect of the right to claim reparation for violations of human rights and humanitarian law.

No compensation has been recommended for C7 Real Property losses where claimants fail to establish the fact of ownership.

The fifth F4 instalment consists of 19 claims submitted by six governments (collectively the Claimants ) concerning damage caused by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

While the claimants in this instalment claimed for D2 and D3 losses more frequently than claimants in the regular category D claims programme and asserted higher claimed amounts, 103 of the 117 claims are not recommended for compensation as the claimants failed to prove the essential requirements of ownership, loss or causation.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012105, the claimant did not include audited accounts in his original claim submission.

The service estimations rely on assigning ecological benefit (or uplift ) values to sites depending on their level of current development and the possibility of future development.

TECHNICAL ANNEXES TO THE FIFTH F4 INSTALMENT REPORT

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

duplicate claims Two or more claims filed by a claimant under the late claims programme in the same category.

Some of these identifiers are included in the claim form submitted by the claimant the remaining data is taken from the evidence provided by a claimant either in the original claim or in response to claim development notifications.

6. It is clear that the right to claim reparation for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law should be given primarily to the direct victim in cases where the direct victim is unable to claim or precluded from claiming reparation, such right should be enjoyed by the descendants of the direct victim, and subsidiarilly to the persons closely connected with the direct victim.

matching claims Two or more claims filed by a claimant during the regular filing period and under the late claims programme.

Contract None of the claims in this instalment seek compensation for a loss of contracts.

In UNCC claim No. 3011755 the claimant seeks compensation for the losses of a jewellery and money exchange business in Kuwait.

In each case, the Panel reviewed the evidence to determine whether the claimant established that the losses were a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

By signing the claim form, the claimant also authorizes Kuwait, through PAAC, to apply for and to receive the fixed amount of USD 2,500 on the claimant's behalf in the event that the Panel determines that the claimant is eligible to participate in the bedoun programme.

The claim preparers were often listed as the contact persons in the claim files and some claim files included attestations from the claim preparers opining on the merits of the claim.

For their part, the Claimants concerned assert that they are entitled to submit claims for public health losses.

As the documents demonstrate that the Palestinian claimants had an ownership interest in the lighting businesses as at 2 August 1990, and as the Kuwaiti claimant has not established that she purchased their ownership interest and their right to claim for compensation in the post liberation period, the Panel finds that the Palestinian claimants are entitled to claim for their percentage of the losses of the lighting businesses and should be compensated for their demonstrated losses.

In the fifth instalment of category A claims, four claims were found to be duplicates of claims previously awarded compensation.

Of the 24 company claims in this instalment, 19 are stand alone claims four are corporate detainee claims and one is an E2 claim.

There are 4 such claims reported in the fourth instalment.

Specifically, the secretariat, in valuing the claimant's D6 (loss of income) claim, incorrectly treated it as a duplicate of the claimant's C6 (salary loss) claim, resulting in an erroneous reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant for his C6 claim.

The Working Group notes that the secretariat will provide to the Government of Kuwait the claim form to be used to file the bedoun claims, which will include, inter alia, an affirmation by the claimants that they suffered direct losses as a result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and had no earlier opportunity to file claims with the Commission.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012049 a claimant asserted losses in the amount of USD 265,034 in connection with a spare parts business.

The claim of E4 claimant Al Salmy Transport Company was considered in the second instalment of E4 claims.

Some claimants have withdrawn part or all of their claims through the Palestinian Authority.

The E4 claimant Al Nuwaisib Building Requirement was originally considered in the eighteenth instalment of E4 claims where it had been considered as overlapping with a category C claim filed by a different individual claimant.

In its First Report, the Panel determined that claimants who filed claims during the regular filing period in the same claim category had a full and effective opportunity to file claims with the Commission at that time.