The other claim did not contain the claimant's affirmation concerning the losses claimed although the claimant was given an opportunity to remedy this formal deficiency.

Although claimants were given an opportunity to correct these formal deficiencies, many did not.

Although claimants in the fourth instalment were sent such notifications, many did not respond.

By contrast, in one set of potentially overlapping claims, the Panel reached the conclusion that the claims were overlapping, despite the individual claimant's assertion that his claim was mistakenly filed in the name of the E4 claimant.

The two ineligible claims contained formal deficiencies that were not corrected by the claimants concerned although they were given an opportunity to do so.

Noting that the submitting Governments distributed the awards to the first in time claimants prior to the identification of the competing claims and that despite some successful efforts undertaken to date by the submitting Governments that resulted in the return of overpayments from their nationals, there remain first in time competing claimants who have yet to return funds despite requests to do so,

Although the individual amounts claimed for barley and wheat in this claim unit are USD 1,635,113 and USD 1,214,664 respectively (a total of USD 2,849,777), Saudi Arabia has only claimed USD 2,670,227 (10,000,000 Saudi Arabian rials) for this claim unit.

Despite the poor quality of evidence submitted in support of the claims, the Commission concluded that the significantly reduced awards were reasonable.

a. Claims and Information Management Section

In twofive of the individual claims identified as potentially overlapping with E4 claims, the Panel considers that the claim wass were not overlapping as the individual claimant was weres claiming losses that were related to the E4 claimant companies but were not overlapping losses (for example, where the individual claimant is seeking compensation for a loss of salary or management fee from the E4 claimant).

With respect to D1 forced hiding, illegal detention and hostage taking claims, the Panel also noted that the incidence of loss was higher among the claimants in this instalment, although they claimed compensation for fewer days in instances of forced hiding and illegal detention.

The incentive programme should be a transitional mechanism and should be phased out as livestock owners come to accept that the current stocking levels are not sustainable.

Soon after the Panel commenced its review of the eligible category D Palestinian late claims , it became apparent that this claims population exhibits certain features that were not present in the claims in the regular category D claims programme or, if present, were not present to the same degree.

Notwithstanding the verified business licences, the Panel recommends no award of compensation for the asserted business losses in each of these three claims.

In the light of this information, the Panel recommends no award of compensation for the alleged currency loss despite the fact that the claimant submitted the banknotes to the Commission.

The claimant's wife, however, while asserting that she remained with her husband during the regular filing period, did not explain the reasons for her inability to file a category C claim at that time, although she was asked to do so.

The cross check program performs a search on various combinations of available identifying information in order to exclude as much as possible any cross category multiple recovery between category A (departure) claims and claims for departure submitted on the C1 page of the category C claim form.

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

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.

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

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.

With respect to the business losses, the Panel finds that while the claimant is able to establish the existence and his ownership of a business as at 2 August 1990, the evidence is insufficient to support most of the amount claimed.

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.

The average amount claimed for the claims in this instalment is about USD 2 million, compared to about USD 820,000 for all claims, about USD 934,000 for Jordanian claims and about USD 861,000 for Kuwaiti claims in the regular category D claims programme.

The median amount claimed is about USD 470,000 for claims in this instalment, compared with about USD 263,000 for all claims, about USD 335,000 for Jordanian claims and about USD 276,000 for Kuwaiti claims in the regular category D claims programme Approximately 75 per cent of the claims in this instalment contain D8 D9 business losses in relation to unincorporated establishments in Kuwait.

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.

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

There are also three claimants in this instalment whose individual claims for C8 Business losses were determined to be claims for corporate losses.

JordanTwo claims reported in the second instalment were found to be duplicates of claims also reported in the same instalment.

The majority of the claims in the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims were filed by an E4 claimant and an individual claimant who was a shareholder of the E4 claimant company.

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.

The monitoring and assessment claims of Iran that were awarded funding in the first F4 instalment and are relevant to claim No. 5000287 are claim Nos. 5000392, 5000393 and 5000395.

The total amount asserted for claims preparation costs is USD 76,339.12.

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.

As stated above, the eligible category D Palestinian late claims have a higher incidence of loss types and higher amounts claimed than claims in the regular category D claims programme, giving rise to a potential risk of overstatement of the claims.

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.

Sixth F1 instalment, claim No. 5000120.