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 largest number of duplicates affected category A claims, where several countries were found to have submitted a number of claims more than once.

The searches identified 104 E4 claims with approved awards of compensation in the first seven instalments as potentially overlapping with 61 claims in category C and 70 claims in category D .

In addition, the searches identified 287 E4 claims in the remaining E4 instalments as potentially overlapping with 168 claims in category C and 203 claims in category D .

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.

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 claim of the Palestinian claimant is now before the Panel.

A preliminary examination of these claims revealed that some, but not all, of the Kuwaiti companies in issue had filed claims with the Commission, which were being processed as E4 claims.

The claim of the Palestinian claimant is now before the Panel.

The claim of the Palestinian claimant is now before the Panel.

As a result of the computer programme and manual follow up, 37,850 category A claims were identified as confirmed duplicate claims during the course of claims processing.

Soon after the Panel commenced its review of the eligible category D Palestinian late claims , it became apparent that this claims population exhibits certain features that were not present in the claims in the regular category D claims programme or, if present, were not present to the same degree.

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.

In response, the UNCC secretariat received a number of requests from submitting Governments to correct claims identified by the latter as duplicates, but which had not been identified by the UNCC computer program, as the basis of which the duplicates were identified fell outside the parameters of the program.

A similar exercise was conducted with respect to category C for the purpose of identifying duplicate claims during claims processing.

The fourthsecond group of overlapping claims initially consisted of E4 claims related to 39seven category C claims and 24 category C and D claims.

The average number of loss types is 3.14 for the claims in this instalment, compared with 2.01 for all claims in the regular category D claims programme, 1.93 for Jordanian claims and 1.71 for Kuwaiti claims.

In twofive of the individual claims identified as potentially overlapping with E4 claims, the Panel considers that the claim wass were not overlapping as the individual claimant was weres claiming losses that were related to the E4 claimant companies but were not overlapping losses (for example, where the individual claimant is seeking compensation for a loss of salary or management fee from the E4 claimant).

Subsequently, in response to claim development, the individual claimant stated that he had no ownership interest in the company, and that his claim relating to the company was submitted in error by his claim preparer.

Real property None of the claims in this instalment seek compensation for a loss of real property.

There are also three claimants in this instalment whose individual claims for C8 Business losses were determined to be claims for corporate losses.

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

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012105, the claimant did not include audited accounts in his original claim submission.

In the fifth instalment of category A claims, four claims were found to be duplicates of claims previously awarded compensation.

Concerning the issue of duplicate claims, the secretariat indicated that it was aware of the risk of duplicate claims from the outset of claims processing and took steps to identify and eliminate such claims during the course of claims processing.

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.

The average amount claimed for the claims in this instalment is about USD 2 million, compared to about USD 820,000 for all claims, about USD 934,000 for Jordanian claims and about USD 861,000 for Kuwaiti claims in the regular category D claims programme.

The median amount claimed is about USD 470,000 for claims in this instalment, compared with about USD 263,000 for all claims, about USD 335,000 for Jordanian claims and about USD 276,000 for Kuwaiti claims in the regular category D claims programme Approximately 75 per cent of the claims in this instalment contain D8 D9 business losses in relation to unincorporated establishments in Kuwait.

Claims without a parenthetical reference contained corporate losses only.

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.

As a result, approximately 5,000 duplicate claims were identified and eliminated during the course of claims processing.

In a number of instances, claimants appeared not to recognize the types of losses or amounts claimed in their claims or some of the documents provided in support of their claims.

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.

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.

The cross check program performs a search on various combinations of available identifying information in order to exclude as much as possible any cross category multiple recovery between category A (departure) claims and claims for departure submitted on the C1 page of the category C claim form.

One thousand one hundred and forty five claims in the fourth instalment of category C claims are not recommended for payment.

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

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.

This fifth instalment reports the adjusted recommended award amounts for such claims.

the fifth instalment of category C claims are not recommended for payment.

In this instalment, one stand alone claim failed to satisfy this requirement and the Panel recommends no compensation in respect of this claim.

As the category D Palestinian late claims were not filed until the end of the regular category D work programme, matches between regular and Palestinian category D claims were identified upon review of the latter claims.

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 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 monitoring and assessment claims of Iran that were awarded funding in the first F4 instalment and are relevant to claim No. 5000286 are claim Nos. 5000343, 5000344, 5000347, 5000383, 5000420, 5000425, 5000427 and 5000428.