Iraq stated that the claimant did not provide proof of his alleged personal losses.

There is one claim in this instalment where the claimant established that she owned real property in Iraq however, her claim for C7 Real Property losses fails as she did not establish the fact of loss.

As the altered death certificate was proffered in support of the claimant's C3 Death loss, the Panel recommends no compensation be awarded for that loss type.

The claimant will also be required to provide any available evidence to demonstrate such losses.

Moreover, the Panel found that the Claimant did not submit appropriate evidence in support of its alleged loss.

However, the Panel finds that submission of the banknotes alone is insufficient to prove the loss, as the Panel also requires credible evidence of loss and causation.

The Panel finds that the evidence provided to support this claim unit is not sufficient to demonstrate the circumstances of the loss claimed.

But the Panel also found that within certain Claims individual loss elements or portions thereof were not supported by particularized statements of claim or documentary or other evidence sufficient to demonstrate the circumstances and amount of the claimed loss.

13. In 100 per cent of the claims included in the sampling project, the Panel s criteria for proof of ownership, proof of loss and causal relationship to the invasion were met.For elaboration of all relevant criteria, see First Report, pp. 59 81, 148 158.

Consequently, Iran has failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for compensation as specified in article 35(3) of the Rules.

The Panel notes that the claimant provided inconsistent descriptions of his personal property losses and finds that he has failed to prove the existence of these losses.

With respect to the claims for loss of tangible business property and loss of business income, the Panel finds that the evidence supports recommended awards of compensation in the respective amounts of USD 7,005 and USD 17,500.

The Panel, therefore, finds that Iran has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the circumstances and the amount of the losses claimed.

However, the Claimant has not made a showing that its loss is covered by this provision of decision 7.

For the reasons given with respect to the loss of real property in paragraphs 71 to 73 above, the Panel decides that the Claimants should be compensated for their loss of tangible property to the extent such losses are adequately supported by documentary or other appropriate evidence.

However, the Claim contained no evidence demonstrating that the Claimant itself actually incurred a loss by reimbursing its employee for his property loss.

The individual claimant whose claim had been identified as potentially overlapping with the E4 claim has provided evidence in the form of audited financial statements and invoices to support the claim for loss of stock and loss of profits.

The Panel considers that irregularities in documents that support asserted losses adversely affect the loss type or loss elements to which the supporting document relates.

It was stressed that it was important for economic loss suffered by fishing and tourism industries to be compensable, provided that the link between the incident and the economic loss was clear and demonstrable.

The Panel notes that the low recovery rate is attributable to the presence of a high number of non compensable losses and the prevalence of irregular documents provided in support of apparently inflated losses.

Valuation methodologies In support of the claims for loss or depletion of natural resources and for damage to public health resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, the Claimants have relied on statistical evidence and calculations as well as certain methodologies for estimating the extent of damage and quantifying the losses to be compensated.

The Panel finds that each of these losses fails, as claimants have either failed to clearly describe a loss or to prove the essential legal requirements of ownership, loss or causation.

However, the present claim is for damage to cultural heritage property and sites in all areas of Iran.

D5 (bank accounts and securities) losses

While some ecological impacts persist, they will vary from site to site, depending on a variety of conditions, and the degree of recovery at each site will depend on the extent of oil contamination and the nature and location of the sites.

In light of the assets that may be recovered, may be put into continuous use, or the actual loss thereof may not be proved, they may not be written off.

In the third F4 report, the Panel found that Saudi Arabia's estimate of the area of shoreline that is contaminated by oil was reasonable.

In evaluating the evidence submitted by the Claimants, the Panel had to decide whether such evidence was sufficient to demonstrate the circumstances and the amount of the claimed loss.

The Panel also recommends no compensation for the personal property loss alleged as the claimant made inconsistent statements regarding how the loss occurred and did not provide sufficient credible evidence to prove his ownership of the personal property.

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

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

In support of his claimed business losses, the claimant provided documents evidencing post liberation efforts to regain his property.

But the evidence was insufficient in those Claims to demonstrate with a reasonable degree of certainty the amount of the loss.

Where the claimant fails to provide the originals of documents that support his or her asserted losses, the Panel determines that such loss types or loss elements will not be recommended for compensation.

Based on the data submitted by Saudi Arabia, the Panel has made appropriate adjustments to Saudi Arabia's estimate of the extent of service losses and to other aspects of the claim, as indicated below.

The Panel finds that the claimant has failed to prove his claim for business losses and recommends no award of compensation.

The Panel reviewed approximately 300 claims for D8 D9 (individual business) losses in this instalment. Approximately 25 per cent have no recommended awards of compensation, because the claimant either failed to establish the existence of or his or her ownership of the business as at 2 August 1990 or provided insufficient evidence to prove the quantum of the loss.

After considering all of the evidence provided, the Panel determines that the claimant has failed to prove the alleged loss and recommends no award of compensation.

Article 35(3) of the Rules provides that category F claims must be supported by documentary and other appropriate evidence sufficient to demonstrate the circumstances and amount of the claimed loss .

On the basis of the evidence provided by the claimant, the loss is compensable under the category D methodology for D1 losses.

(1) An authorized certification authority shall be liable to any person who has acted in good faith in reliance on a certificate issued by the certification authority for any loss due to defects in the registration of the certification authority, technical breakdowns or similar circumstances even if the loss is not due if the loss is due to negligence by the certification authority.

Traditional approaches used in the Badia to enforce grazing rights may play an important role in such a programme.

In the light of these irregularities, the Panel finds that the claimant has failed to prove his claim for business losses and recommends no award of compensation.

Accordingly, the Panel decides that the Claimant s loss of its cars should be compensated to the extent that it is adequately supported by documentary or other appropriate evidence.

99. The Board s analysis disclosed that in 30 cases the organization suffered losses totalling 777,342, and in 16 cases no financial losses were incurred by UNICEF.