The secretariat identified 25 category A claims filed by the Government of the Sudan for a high amount by claimants that had also filed claims in other claim categories.

It was therefore not possible for the Commission to detect multiple family claims submitted by individual members of the same family (family claims attracted a higher rate of compensation than claims submitted by individuals).

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.

At the time that the F3 Panel made its recommendations in respect of the original F3 claim, the claimed amount in respect of the family support payments aspect of the original F3 claim had risen to USD 69,680,679, plus a daily amount of USD 22,411 into the future.

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.

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

As a result of further information received from the Government of India, three claims submitted by the Government of India have been identified as having been filed for a higher amount in category A by claimants who had also filed claims in another claim category.

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

Claimants whose spouses filed claims during the regular filing period

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.

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 author's claim was thereafter dismissed and following the rejection of his claim, the author filed four successive motions in the Supreme Court.

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.

As a result of further information received from the Governments of India, Pakistan and the Philippines, one claim submitted by the Government of India, one claim submitted by the Government of Pakistan and 22 claims submitted by the Government of the Philippines have been identified as having been filed for a higher amount in category A by a claimant who had also filed a claim in another claim category.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The Panel considers that these features of the claims population give rise to a potential risk of overstatement of the 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.

The E4 claims population consists of claims submitted by Kuwaiti private sector corporations and entities, other than oil sector and environmental claims, eligible to file claims under the Commission's Claim Forms for Corporations and Other Entities ( Form E ).

The E4 population consists of claims submitted by, or on behalf of, Kuwaiti private sector corporations and entities, other than oil sector and environmental claimants, eligible to file claims under the Commission's Claim Forms for Corporations and Other Entities .

During the course of the review of the category C Palestinian late claims that were included in the Report and recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning the fourth instalment of Palestinian late claims' for damages up to USD 100,000 (category C' claims) (S AC.26 2005 3), the secretariat identified 26 claims with matching category A claims that were submitted by the Government of Jordan under the regular claims programme.

Iraq also objects to Saudi Arabia's two category transect classification approach, in which transects are described either as non recovering or as recovering disturbed .

C3 Death claims seek compensation for the death of a spouse, child or parent of the claimant.

The Panel notes that the category A claim form included an option for a claimant to select higher lump sum amounts provided that he or she agreed not to submit claims in any other claims category.

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.

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

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

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.

Duplicate claims are two or more claims filed by an individual in the same claims category.

32.4 A Party to the Convention asserting a claim pursuant to this Article shall submit its claim in writing to any Annex _ Party against whom it makes such claim within six years following the year for which the claim is made.

A Party to the Convention asserting a claim pursuant to this Article shall submit its claim in writing to any Annex _ Party against whom it makes such claim within six years following the year for which the claim is made.

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.

The partnership agreement referenced in the court documents is signed by the Kuwaiti claimant's husband and specifically refers to the business that the Kuwaiti claimant claimed for in her claim.

In accordance with Governing Council decision 21, claimants who filed category C late claims but who selected the higher lump sum amounts on their category A claim forms are deemed to have selected the lower amounts.

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.

More than 900,000 category A compensation claims were submitted by claimants.

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,

With respect to the D1 departure claims, the Panel noted that the data indicated that claimants in this instalment claimed for this loss type more frequently than claimants in the regular claims programme and had higher average and median claimed amounts and higher average and median recommended awards.

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.

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.