Further, the Panel finds that to rely on the revised category D claim and its supporting evidence would be tantamount to allowing the individual claimant to file a new claim after the deadline for filing of claims.

Claimants whose spouses filed claims during the regular filing period

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

The Panel reviewed each proposed amendment to ensure that it did not constitute a new claim filed after the appropriate deadlines.

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

FOR DAMAGES UP TO USD 100,000 (CATEGORY C CLAIMS)

In one claim, a husband who filed a category A claim during the regular filing period explained that he was unable to file a category C claim at the same time because no claim forms were available.

First claim unit Medical treatment and public health facilities for refugees Iran seeks compensation in the amount of USD 5,639,273 for losses suffered as a result of the influx of refugees into its territory between 2 August 1990 and 2 March 1991.

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

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.

The first step was the electronic matching of claims and the manual verification of matches in order to identify those claims filed under the late claims programme by claimants who previously filed claims during the regular filing period.

The one individual claim that was not filed through the Palestinian late claims programme was originally filed in the regular filing period for individual claims.

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.

A number of such claims have been filed, principally by Kuwait, on behalf of claimants since the end of the regular filing period.

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.

Filing of claims by representation

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,

However, two of these claimants filed duplicative claims in the bedoun programme, reducing the number of claims filed by such claimants to 957.

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.

Having reviewed 40 claims submitted by the Government of the Philippines, one claim submitted by the Government of India and 20 claims submitted by the Government of Jordan, the secretariat confirms that they are, indeed, duplicates and should not have been awarded compensation.

A number of such claims have been filed, principally by Kuwait, on behalf of claimants since the end of the regular filing period.

However, as determined by the Panel in its Third Report, the failure to file a claim during the regular filing period on account of a claimant's belief that the programme would not be successful is not a satisfactory reason for late filing.

The Panel further determined that the existence of a previously filed claim in another claim category might, but does not necessarily, indicate that the claimant had a full and effective opportunity to file a claim during the regular filing period.

Overall, there are 31,31,70 claims that the Panel has determined to be ineligible for inclusion in the late claims programme because the claimants failed to provide satisfactory reasons for late filing.

multiple claims Two or more claims in category C that were submitted under the late claims programme by individuals who are related to each other.

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

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.

Therefore, where a husband was able to file a claim during the regular filing period and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the wife for her failure to file a claim at the same time, the Panel determined that the wife had a full and effective opportunity to file claims during the regular filing period and is not eligible to participate in the late claims programme.

The Panel further determines that those claimants who demonstrate that they made attempts to file in the West Bank but were unsuccessful due to the lack of claim forms have provided satisfactory reasons for late filing and are therefore eligible to participate in the late claims programme.

As a result of manual searches for matching and related claims, a number of claims were identified in the fourth instalment that were submitted by wives whose husbands had filed claims, predominantly in category A , during the regular filing period.

Three claims were submitted by the Kuwaiti Ministry of Defense and one claim was submitted by the Kuwaiti National Guard.

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.

The claimants in that report did not submit any claims for medical treatment costs.

Stand alone claims are corporate business losses filed by individuals.

As a result, over 4,000 Palestinian late claims were identified to have matching claims that were filed during the regular filing period.

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 the absence of a satisfactory response or the submission of the original document that relates to the claimant's reasons for late filing, the Panel finds that the claimant is not eligible to participate in the late claims programme.

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.

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,

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.

As stated in paragraph 21, a total of 29,065 claims were filed by such claimants.

As stated in paragraph 22, a total of 398 claims were filed by such claimants.

As stated in paragraph 25, a total of 1,446 claims were filed by such claimants.