The average number of loss types is 3.14 for the claims in this instalment, compared with 2.01 for all claims in the regular category D claims programme, 1.93 for Jordanian claims and 1.71 for Kuwaiti claims.

All category F claimants were required to submit with the ir claim forms ... a separate Statement of Claim which had to include the following particulars

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.

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.

In its review of the Claims, the Panel found that all the Claims contained a statement of claim and evidence sufficient to establish at least parts of certain loss elements alleged within the Claims.

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.

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.

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

A preliminary examination of these claims revealed that some, but not all, of the Kuwaiti companies in issue had filed claims with the Commission, which were being processed as E4 claims.

The Claimants assert that international law has consistently taken the view that injury to a national of one State by another State gives rise to a claim that belongs to the State of the national and not to the injured person.

Thus, all claimants have the right to pursue their claims through other mechanisms. This includes claimants covered by paragraph 5 of Decision 43, taken on 1 October 1997, concerning the Egyptian Workers Claims.

The claim preparation costs in claim No. 5000464 relate to all of Jordan's fourth and fifth F4 instalment claims, and not only its public health claim.

As non Palestinian claimants are not eligible to participate in this late claims programme, the Panel was concerned that business owners who failed to file in the regular claims programme may have provided fabricated ownership documents establishing rent a permit agreements with Palestinian claimants with the understanding that the parties would share in any award of compensation.

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.

We have by today resolved most of the 2.6 million claims filed, and we have awarded over 5 billion in compensation to successful claimants from practically all of the claiming countries.

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

The Panel found that the remainder of the potential claims, including all of the claims in respect of Bahraini detainees, did not meet the criteria for filing set out in decision 12 and, consequently, it did not accept these claims for filing.

All of the individual Palestinian claims in this instalment have been determined by the Palestinian Panel of Commissioners to be eligible for inclusion in the late claims programme, since those claimants have established that they did not have a full and effective opportunity to file claims with the Commission within its regular filing period for individual claims.

In some cases, based on its review of the documents underlying the Claims, the Panel has reclassified the losses stated by Claimants on their claim forms.

Real property None of the claims in this instalment seek compensation for a loss of real property.

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

As stated above, the eligible category D Palestinian late claims have a higher number of loss types per claim and substantially higher amounts claimed than claims in the regular category D claims programme.

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.

The large volume of complex claims precluded a detailed review of all individual claims.

In a number of cases the Panel found that the claimant in this instalment is not the owner of the subject business and therefore the issue of potential competition with a previously paid claim is resolved.

Specifically, the secretariat, when reviewing the claim, had incorrectly assumed that the claim in respect of one of the two business owned by the claimant had been withdrawn.

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.

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

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

The total compensation sought in the claims reviewed in this report is USD 49,936,562,997.

The claim comprises four claim units with an asserted value of USD 161,000,000.

With respect to four claims, however, the Panel found that the claimants in this instalment proved their ownership of the businesses.

In one case, UNCC claim No. 3011337, all 55 purchase invoices provided by the claimant in support of his loss of stock claim were so altered.

Claims without a parenthetical reference contained corporate losses only.

The Panel finds that both claims fail because the claimants failed to prove the essential legal requirements of ownership, loss or causation.

The bulk of the costs incurred in the reconstruction effort are covered by other claims filed by KOC, including the Physical Assets and Related Damage Claim (the Physical Assets Claim ).

In a number of instances, claimants appeared not to recognize the types of losses or amounts claimed in their claims or some of the documents provided in support of their claims.

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

The Panel reviewed the statistical data indicating that these claimants claimed more frequently for business losses and for substantially higher amounts than claimants in the regular category D claims programme.

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.

This fifth instalment reports the adjusted recommended award amounts for such claims.

the fifth instalment of category C claims are not recommended for payment.

In this instalment, one stand alone claim failed to satisfy this requirement and the Panel recommends no compensation in respect of this claim.

In the claim under review, the Panel finds that the claimant has not provided sufficient evidence in support of the alleged contracts and recommends no compensation for the loss.