Category C corrections Recommendations for corrections to category C claims are those arising from confirmed duplicate claims, discrepancies between the electronic and paper claim formats, and multiple recovery based on the duplication of claim awards.

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

In those cases where they had, the information provided during the interviews was cross checked against the contents of the claim files.

Where the entire claim has been withdrawn, it has not been processed.

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

Moreover, the Kuwaiti claimant appeared to have little or no knowledge of the documentary evidence filed in support of his claims.

Audit of E 1 claims, 10th instalment

Audit of F 4 claims, 5th instalment

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

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.

Matching of claims

Both the Kuwaiti claimant and the Palestinian claimant were interviewed during the technical mission to Kuwait in 2004 and each claimant was asked to comment on the assertions and evidence submitted by the other.

Audit of D 1 claims, 19th instalment

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

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

Category C corrections discrepancies between electronic and paper claim formats

Before the claims in this instalment were submitted to the Panel, the secretariat undertook a complete review of these claims in accordance with the Rules.

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

Both the Kuwaiti claimant and the Palestinian claimant were interviewed during the December 2004 technical mission to Kuwait and each claimant was asked to comment on the assertions and evidence submitted by the other.

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.

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

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

During their interviews, the claim preparers denied that they fabricated or altered evidence to bolster a claim or assisted claimants without valid losses to fabricate claims.

During that time, notifications were issued in respect of 28,911 claims, representing per cent of the total claims population, to elicit further information concerning the claimants' reasons for late filing.

However, as the claimant was alleged to be out of Kuwait at the time, the claimant's daughter appeared on his behalf.

Table 1. Recommended awards for category A claims

Table 2. Recommended awards for category C claims

During the course of its review of claims in the special instalment, the Panel identified one claim that included D8 D9 (individual business) losses in respect of two ready made clothing businesses that were also the subject of a category D claim filed by an Indian claimant in the regular claims programme, which was awarded compensation.

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.

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.

Iraq provided written comments on 14 of the 16 claims.

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

Of the 19 claims, 18 were deferred for determinations in respect of stand alone, overlapping and competing business claim issues and for investigation of potential irregularities in the documentation provided by claimants in support of their asserted business losses.

The claims that were considered duplicated were not processed and the Panel recommends no awards of compensation in respect of these claims.

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

13.8 Where restitution claims forms cannot be sufficiently simplified owing to the complexities inherent in the claims process, States should engage qualified persons to interview potential claimants in confidence, and in a manner that is age and gender sensitive, in order to solicit the necessary information and complete the restitution claims forms on their behalf.

Claims identified by the matching programme as potential matches underwent manual verification to confirm whether they were in fact matches.

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.

In this connection, the Panel notes that general international law recognizes the right of a State to bring claims on the international plane against another State for damage to a national of the claimant State.

The seventh claim file was not transmitted to Iraq as the claimant objected to such transmission.

Kuwait states that its coastal environment was damaged by millions of barrels of oil deliberately released into the Persian Gulf by Iraqi forces.

The Panel also elaborated certain refinements to its procedure in connection with the issuance of reasons review notifications in order to avoid a double review of the claimants' reasons for late filing.

The Panel found that this portion of the Claim did not meet the Commission s particularity requirement with respect to its statement of claim and therefore cannot recommend compensation for this portion of the Claim.