Claim No. 5000286 Agricultural resources Claim No. 5000286 comprises three claim units, with an asserted value of USD 441,895,991, for alleged losses to agricultural crops caused by air pollution and acid rain resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Iraq argues that Saudi Arabia has no standing to bring this claim before the Commission because it was animal breeders who suffered the alleged losses.

4.2 The Committee notes that the author does not claim that he is a victim of the alleged violations of the Covenant by the State party.

Communications may be submitted by individuals or groups of individuals who claim to be victims of violations of the rights set forth in the Convention, or by their designated representatives, or by others on behalf of an alleged victim where the alleged victim consents.

In the claim under review, the Panel finds that the claimant has not provided sufficient evidence in support of the alleged contracts and recommends no compensation for the loss.

Due to an alleged failure from ENTEL to comply with the contract terms, the company filed an administrative claim against ENTEL in 1987, which was dismissed in May 1988.

However, the Committee notes that the communication raises issues with regard to the claim relating to the alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal established by law and will examine that part of the claim under the same article.

Given the amount claimed, the fact that the situs of the alleged losses was Iraq and that Iraq was a party to the contracts that are the subject of some portions of the claim, the Panel directed that the claim file be transmitted to Iraq for comments.

As shown by the Committee's jurisprudence, there is no objection to a group of individuals, who claim to be commonly affected, to submit a communication about alleged breaches of these rights.

3.4 The authors also refer to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that recognize the right of a potential victim to bring a claim against alleged human rights violation.

As to the claim of fire risk he submits that both this risk and the alleged security risk were invented by the prison authorities to deny prisoners access to legal documents.

citation omitted. As shown by the Committee's jurisprudence, there is no objection to a group of individuals, who claim to be commonly affected, to submit a communication about alleged breaches of these rights.

As a preliminary objection, Iraq contends that Saudi Arabia has no standing to submit this claim, as it is not the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but individual farmers who suffered the alleged losses.

Alleged victim Complainant

That conclusion is no mere abstraction. The project s realization has already led to alleged human rights abuses against poor farmers in the region, who claim that they have been denied access to their land.

Iraq argues that Saudi Arabia did not provide any credible evidence, such as maps or figures of the location of the farms or crop areas alleged to have been damaged, to support this claim.

Alleged victim The author

Alleged victims The complainant

Alleged victim The complainant

Alleged victims The complainants

Alleged victim The complainant

Alleged victim The authors

Alleged victim The author

Alleged victim The author

Alleged victim The authors

Alleged victim The author

Alleged victim The author

Alleged victim The authors

Alleged victim The authors

Alleged victim The author

Alleged victim The author

Alleged victims The authors

Alleged victim The authors

Alleged victim The author

Alleged victim The authors

Alleged victim(s) The petitioners

Alleged victim(s) The complainant

Alleged victim(s) The petitioner

Alleged victim(s) The petitioners

Alleged victim Canadian unborn children

4.5 The State party further notes that the original claim made in September 1997 did not include the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, which the author first referred to in December 1999.

The State party concludes that the author's claim should be declared inadmissible on the grounds that at no time did he invoke the substance of the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, before the domestic courts.

the unlawful conduct alleged by the applicant in order to establish its claim for compensation is to be attributed not to the Bundesanstalt, which was bound to comply with the Commission's instructions, but to the Commission itself .

8.4 As to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (c), the Committee finds that this claim has not been substantiated for the purpose of admissibility and is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

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.