Accordingly, the WBC Claim as amended amounts to US 950,715,662.

FIRST INSTALMENT CORRECTIONS

SECOND INSTALMENT CORRECTIONS

Subsequent to the oral proceedings the Claimant amended the WBC Claim, which resulted in a reduction of the amount claimed by US 915,209.

The WBC Claim as amended by the Claimant can be analyzed as follows

(ii) Insurance Claims and Compensation Section

22. Further, the Panel recommends approval of corrected recommended amounts for three claims from the second instalment.In December 1996, the Governing Council accepted the Panel s recommendation that pursuant to Decision 24, in the case of 42 confirmed matches of category A claims and category C1 quot departure claims from the second instalment, appropriate deductions be made from the compensation awarded to the category C claimants.

For these claims, the electronic information existing in the database was compared to the paper claim forms submitted by the claimants.

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.

According to Jordan, this population increase resulted in environmental damage.

Having concluded that this consolidated claim, in effect consists of 82 claims, comprising 67 managing agent and 15 insurance company claims,

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012210 the claimant, who was 22 years old at the time of the invasion, asserted tangible property and profit losses totalling USD 5.6 million for his auto repair shop in Kuwait.

Amendment of claims Some Claimants proposed amendments to some of their claims in the fifth F4 instalment, which they stated were based on the results of monitoring and assessment activities.

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.

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

(c) 978 claims filed by claimants identified as provisionally eligible as a result of the electronic application of the Governing Council's eligibility criteria to each claimant's data in the Executive Committee database

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.

The Panel applied the criteria for determining the existence of overlapping claims as set out in paragraphs 25 31 of the Special Overlap Report.

In the first set of competing claims, a Palestinian claimant and a Kuwaiti claimant filed separate claims in categories D and C respectively for the losses of the same car repair business in Kuwait.

The amount claimed column shows the compensation sought by the Claimants (with amendments, where applicable) expressed in United States dollars (USD) and corrected, where necessary, for computational errors.

The relatively small number of claims in category B enabled the Commission to review each claim individually.

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

Also included in this report is one E2 claim, that is a claim submitted by a non Kuwaiti corporation, public sector enterprise or other private legal entity (excluding oil sector, construction engineering, export guarantee insurance and environmental claimants) (the E2' claim ).

C7 Real Property claims seek compensation for losses related to real property, including costs incurred for repairs and other losses.

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.

(a) 29,051 claims filed by claimants previously determined to be provisionally eligible as a result of the electronic application of the Governing Council's eligibility criteria to each claimant's data in the PACI database

Therefore, before undertaking any review of the claims in the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims, and as stated in the preamble to decision 123, the Panel directed the secretariat to solicit additional information from the claimants in order to identify the extent and nature of the overlapping claims ( claim development ).

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

Specifically, the secretariat failed to present to the Panel the particular facts of the claim, as evidenced by the documents in the claim file.

Recommended corrected total awards for category A claims

Based on the above corrections, the revised category D claim total recommended awards by instalment are as follows Recommended corrected total awards for category D claims

Based on the recommended corrections reported in paragraphs 42 to 46 of this report, supra, the aggregate corrected awards for category E1 claims by instalment, per country, are as follows Tenth instalment category E1 claims corrections

Based on the recommended corrections reported in paragraphs 47 to 57 of this report, supra, the aggregate corrected awards for category F claims by instalment, per country, are as follows Part two of the third instalment category F3 claims corrections

21. The Panel recommends approval of corrected recommended amounts for three claims from the first instalment.In December 1996, the Governing Council accepted the Panel s recommendation that corrections be made to seven claims from the first 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.

Consistent with the regular category C programme, no evidence of authority is required if the claim form is signed by the claimant's spouse or by a parent of a claimant who is a minor.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012259 the claimant seeks compensation of USD 4,930,795 for business losses.

The Panel noted that in cases where the insurers verified the policies, claimants frequently claimed for amounts significantly in excess of the insured figures.

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.

The Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Claim relates to the cost of repairing its security systems in Kuwait and Baghdad .