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.

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

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 Panel notes that a number of these claimants did not appear for interview, while those who did appear were unable to explain why the remaining evidence on their claim files was virtually identical to that of other claimants.

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

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

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.

Therefore, these claimants are not eligible to participate in the late claims programme.

In consequence, bedoun were unable to claim full compensation, available to other claimants.

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

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.

The claimant was asked to produce the original certificates, but failed to do so.

One is an inability to obtain a claim form.

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.

The evidence provided by the claimant in support of this claim indicated that a multiplier of 10 should have been used to calculate the compensation for this claim.

The results of this analysis showed that the proposed average and median recommended awards for claims in this instalment were lower than those for comparable claimants in the regular category D claims programme.

Following the consolidation of the losses, the Panel applies to the consolidated claim the verification and valuation methodology that the E4 Panels developed for E4 claims, taking into consideration that the individual claimants may not be able to provide the same level of documentary evidence in support of the losses asserted as could be provided by the E4 claimants.

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

As of the date it submitted its Claim, the Claimant states that it was unable to have access to its funds.

As a result of these matching procedures, the Panel determined that a total of 4,4,82 claims or nine per cent of the total claims population were not eligible for inclusion in the late claims programme.

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.

Following the consolidation of the losses, the Panel applied the claims review procedures developed by the category E4 Panels, taking into consideration that the individual claimant may not have been able to provide the same level of documentary evidence in support of the losses asserted as could be provided by the E4 claimant.

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

He supported his claim with invoices, receipts, and audited financial statements.

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 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.

A more detailed explanation for the inclusion of the E2 claim in the thirtieth instalment and the Panel's assessment of the claim is provided below in section X.

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

With regard to the use of statistical evidence by the Claimants to support some of the claims, Iraq contends that, in order to succeed with a claim for damages, it has to be proved with certainty that damage or harm to a legally protected interest, for example, health, life or property, has actually occurred.

During the review of the stand alone claims in this instalment, one instance of a related category C claim was identified where a category D claimant had already received an award for the company's losses.

The secretariat's review of the documents provided in support of this claim indicated that the claimant's D6 claim was complementary to, and not a duplicate of, his C6 claim, and therefore the deduction initially performed by the secretariat was incorrect.

In the third group of competing claims, two Palestinian claimants, a Kuwaiti claimant and a Jordanian claimant filed category D claims for the losses of a group of lighting businesses in Kuwait.

The statistical data shows that while the average and median claimed amounts for business losses are substantially higher than for claims in the regular category D claims programme, the average and median recommended awards are generally lower than awards in the regular category D claims programme.

Thus, the Panel determined for such claims that the recommended amount of compensation should be the lower of the amount of loss claimed for the motor vehicle on the C4 quot page of the claim form or the original cost of the vehicle as stated on the C4 quot page of the claim form.See also Second Report, para. 41.

The Governing Council determined in decision 123 that a claim can only be found to be a stand alone claim if the claimant first demonstrates that he or she had the authority to act on behalf of the Kuwaiti company in filing a claim.

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.

In many cases the Panel was not satisfied that the currency was received during the relevant period or pursuant to the rate imposed by Iraq.

At the same time it declare s hereby that its claim is fair and reasonable. In view of the failure to submit any evidence, however limited, in support of this loss, the Panel cannot recommend compensation for the portion of this Claim relating to the security systems.

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.

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.

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.

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.

With one exception, the Panel confirms that these claimants demonstrated that they had authority to file the claim on behalf of the company.

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