After its individual review of these claims, the Panel recommends compensation in the total amount of USD 461,806.

Notwithstanding the verified business licences, the Panel recommends no award of compensation for the asserted business losses in each of these three claims.

The monitoring and assessment claims of Kuwait that were awarded funding in the first F4 instalment and are relevant to claim No. 5000183 are claim Nos. 5000403, 5000404, 5000405, 5000406 and 5000407.

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

The Panel reviewed the Kuwaiti claim in the tenth instalment of category D claims and recommended an award of USD 1,444,446 for business losses.

The monitoring and assessment claims of Kuwait that were awarded funding in the first F4 instalment and are relevant to claim Nos. 5000460 are claim Nos. 5000374, 5000375, 5000376, 5000378, 5000397, 5000398, 5000432, 5000433, 5000434 and 5000435.

The Panel reviewed the Kuwaiti claimant's claim in the eleventh instalment of category D claims and recommended an award of USD 379,782 for the losses of the printing business.

The monitoring and assessment claims of Saudi Arabia that were awarded funding in the first F4 instalment and are relevant to claim No. 5000463 are claim Nos. 5000359, 5000361, 5000363, 5000408, 5000409, 5000411, 5000437, 5000438, 5000439, 5000440 and 5000441.

The Panel, noting that the husband is not Palestinian and thus is ineligible to participate in this late claims programme, recommends no award of compensation for his losses.

In the view of the Panel, there are no compensable losses beyond those addressed by the remediation measures for which awards were made in the third and fourth F4 instalments.

The category C Panel reviewed the category C claim in the Seventh C Report and recommended an award of USD 58,805 for the losses of the business.

The Panel notes that Governing Council decision 3 enumerates the categories under which individual claimants may be awarded non pecuniary damages for mental pain and anguish.

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.

review of non overlapping claims in the FOURTHsecond group of overlapping claims

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

However, it states that remediation programmes proposed in claim No. 5000454 and for which compensation was awarded in the fourth F4 instalment will address these impacts and return affected areas to baseline conditions within a twelve year timeframe .

First F4 instalment, claim Nos. 5000363, 5000408 and 5000409.

In the absence of satisfactory evidence of the existence of the business as at 2 August 1990, the Panel recommends no awards of compensation for the asserted business losses in these claims, which total approximately USD 45 million.

Intermediate Event Compensation

End Event Compensation

Compensation for the Victim of the Crime

Details of the claims or parts of claims that were deferred from previous F4 instalments or transferred from other claims categories are discussed in the relevant sections of this report.

These E4 claims were considered in the second instalment of E4 claims.

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

Claims

The secretariat has also used these electronic searches for duplicate claims in the Palestinian late claims programme, the Bedouin programme and the category A and C late claims programme.

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.

In connection with the claims by governments for loss of life and reduced quality of life of their nationals, Iraq asserts that the claims are inadmissible because the Claimants concerned lack legal standing to bring such claims before the Commission.

Staff buyout

The E4 Panel recommended no compensation for the claim when it was originally reviewed, as the E4 claimant had not submitted sufficient information or documents to support its asserted losses.

First F4 instalment claim Nos. 5000354, 5000355, 5000356, 5000357, 5000358 and 5000430.

This global approach was suited to the specifics of category C claims processing, as category C claims are subject to mass claims processing procedures and are not subject to extensive individual review or claim development.

The Panel reviewed the potentially overlapping claims in the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims as and when the information provided by the claimants permitted an initial determination to be made on the existence of overlap.

Category E F claims During the period under review, the secretariat reviewed one request from one Government for corrections to a claim in category E F .

J. Compensation for victims of terrorist acts

They have received no compensation.

Some claimants indicated that they engaged a claim preparer after seeing advertisements placed in Kuwaiti newspapers offering assistance with the filing of Palestinian late claims .

development of the FOURTHsecond group of overlapping claims

review of the FOURTH group of overlapping claims

Based on the results of these cross checks, the Panel is satisfied that there is no risk of duplication of awards of compensation that requires an adjustment to the Panel's recommendations.

Third F4 instalment, claim No. 5000450 and fourth F4 instalment, claim Nos. 5000454 and 5000466.

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.

(e) Medical claims

In particular, the Panel considered that it was appropriate to propose, as needed, adjustments to such awards in the light of new information and evidence presented.

Duplicate claims