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

JordanTwo claims reported in the second instalment were found to be duplicates of claims also reported in the same instalment.

The total amount asserted for claims preparation costs is USD 76,339.12.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (CATEGORY F CLAIMS) GE.97 65309

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

SudanOne claim originally reported in the fourth instalment was found to be a duplicate of a claim also reported in the same instalment.

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).

losses claimed on the C5 quot page related to bank accounts located in Kuwait See the discussion of C5 quot bank accounts located in Kuwait in the Second Report, at paras. 42 43. and

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

Audit of E 1 claims, 10th instalment

Audit of F 4 claims, 5th instalment

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

It is recommended that no compensation be awarded for the duplicate claim in the sixth instalment.

Audit of D 1 claims, 19th instalment

at its 66th meeting, held on 17 December 1996 at GenevaPreviously issued as S AC.26 Dec.39 (1996).

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

In this claim, which was submitted on a category E (corporate) claim form, the Claimant seeks compensation in the amount of US 951,630,871 for the costs allegedly incurred in

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

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.

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

In the first instalment of category A claims, one claim submitted by Thailand was found to be a duplicate of a claim awarded compensation in the same instalment.

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

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

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.

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

KuwaitOne family claim in the sixth instalment was incorrectly awarded the amount of US 5,000.

SwedenOne claim in the sixth instalment was erroneously reported as not eligible for compensation.

United Kingdom One family claim in the sixth instalment was erroneously awarded US 4,000.

Claims received

BangladeshOne family claim in the sixth instalment was incorrectly awarded the amount of US 4,000.

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

19. The Panel hereby presents the amounts recommended as compensation for 76,720 claims in the fifth instalment of category

However, Iraq argues that Kuwait has based its calculation of damage to the shoreline resources on computer models and natural resource damage assessment ( NRDA ) data from the United States with limited adjustments for the Kuwait situation .

Also, the availability of the necessary resources should allow that the panels of the Commissioners appointed to review claims in categories D (individual claims for losses over 100,000), E (corporate claims) and F (governmental claims) start their review of claims during the first quarter of 1997.

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.

Overview of the fourth instalment

(Category A Claims)

II. THE CLAIMS 14 46 7

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

Of these claims, the Panel recommends awards of compensation for two claims, while no awards are recommended for the remaining 16 claims.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PANEL OF COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO REVIEW THE WELL BLOWOUT CONTROL CLAIM

In view of the complexity of the issues raised, the volume of documentation underlying the Claim and the amount of compensation sought by the Claimant, the Panel in its first Procedural Order of 27 November 1995 classified the WBC Claim as an unusually large or complex claim within the meaning of article 38 (d) of the Rules.

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.