The majority of the claims in the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims were filed by an E4 claimant and an individual claimant who was a shareholder of the E4 claimant company.

In the second set of competing claims, a Palestinian claimant and a Kuwaiti claimant filed separate claims in category D for the losses of a printing business in Kuwait.

In the third group of competing claims, two Palestinian claimants, a Kuwaiti claimant and a Jordanian claimant filed category D claims for the losses of a group of lighting businesses in Kuwait.

In the first set of competing claims, a Palestinian claimant and a Kuwaiti claimant filed separate claims in categories D and C respectively for the losses of the same car repair business in Kuwait.

The claim of E4 claimant Al Salmy Transport Company was considered in the second instalment of E4 claims.

Iraq commented that the claimant did not provide records showing the quantity of goods that he claims were looted.

E4 claimant Ali Muowar Mohammed Kharma Industrial Equipment Co. was originally considered in the second instalment of E4 claims.

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

The E4 claimant Al Nuwaisib Building Requirement was originally considered in the eighteenth instalment of E4 claims where it had been considered as overlapping with a category C claim filed by a different individual claimant.

The claim of E4 claimant Al Illaiwi Abudiak for Transport Export Import Co. was considered in the second instalment of E4 claims.

Revised recommended awards for the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims second instalment reported by UNSEQ and UNCC claim number and claimant name 13

Revised recommended awards for the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims sixth instalment reported by UNSEQ and UNCC claim number and claimant name 19

Revised recommended awards for the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims tenth instalment reported by UNSEQ and UNCC claim number and claimant name 21

Revised recommended awards for the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims eighteenth instalment reported by UNSEQ and UNCC claim number and claimant name 23

Where a claimant claims in a currency other than Kuwaiti dinars, the Panel values the claim in Kuwaiti dinars using the appropriate exchange rate.

RECOMMENDED CORRECTIONS CONCERNING claims in CATEGORY D The claims in this section for which corrections have been recommended have been broken down according to the claimant Governments that put forward the operative article 41 request.

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.

In some instances, there had been a relationship between the company and the individual claimant (for example, an employment relationship), but the businesses claimed were separate and distinct. As a consequence, these claims are not overlapping claims.

The Panel reviewed the overlapping claims together to determine which of the losses claimed by the category C claimant should be consolidated with the E4 claim for review.

Notes that, as referred to in paragraph four of the report, two deceased detainee claims were withdrawn by the claimant in the course of the Panel's review of this instalment,

The Panel's re examination of the two claims was conducted pursuant to the direction in decision 123 that those stand alone claims for which the individual claimant has been found to have authority to file on behalf of the company be processed in category E4 .

Damage to public health The claims in the fifth F4 instalment include claims by governments for losses or expenses resulting from damage to public health, in terms of adverse health effects on specific categories of residents of the claimant countries or on the general population.

Following the consolidation of the losses, the Panel applied the claims review procedures developed by the category E4 Panels, taking into consideration that the individual claimant may not have been able to provide the same level of documentary evidence in support of the losses asserted as could be provided by the E4 claimant.

Having carefully examined the manner in which the claimant originally presented and described his claim and the manner in which he re characterized it in his article 15 34 response, the Panel is of the view that the claimant is attempting to advance a number of new claims after the filing deadline.

Pursuant to article 34 of the Rules, notifications were transmitted to each individual claimant requesting additional information in order to assist the Panel in its review of the claims (the claim development process).

With respect to the stand alone claims in this instalment, there is one occasion where more than one claim has been filed for the losses of the same company by the same individual claimant.

(m) Competing claimant means

(gg) Competing claimant means

Paragraph 1(b) of decision 123 directs the Executive Secretary to transfer and process in E4 as Kuwaiti company claims those stand alone claims for which the individual claimant has been found by the D Panels to have authority to file a claim on behalf of the company ( authority to act ).

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 business loss page of the individual claimant was completed in the name of an E4 claimant, and the individual claimant had originally provided documents indicating a connection between him and the company.

During the review of the stand alone claims in this instalment, one instance of a related category C claim was identified where a category D claimant had already received an award for the company's losses.

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.

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.

Further, the Panel finds that to rely on the revised category D claim and its supporting evidence would be tantamount to allowing the individual claimant to file a new claim after the deadline for filing of claims.

Where the third party was unable to verify the documents proffered by the claimant or provided statements inconsistent with the information provided by the claimant, the Panel finds the evidence submitted by the claimant to be unreliable.

The Panel notes that most of the evidence provided by the Palestinian claimant was original while the Kuwaiti claimant provided copies only.

In category D , competing claims are identified after conducting extensive database cross checks on claimant names, partner names, business names, civil identification numbers, business licence numbers, chamber of commerce identification numbers and other identifying data.

In addition, Governing Council decision 46 (S AC.26 Dec.46 (1998)) states that, for category F claims, no loss shall be compensated by the Commission solely on the basis of an explanatory statement provided by the claimant .

The burden of proof was on the claimant.

If non Kuwaiti claimants provided these documents to the Commission and no competing claims for the business were identified after database cross checks, the Panel was generally satisfied that the non Kuwaiti claimant was the true owner of the business.

AUTHORITY TO ACT TEST Pursuant to decision 123, only those claims for which the individual claimant has been found by the D Panels to have authority to act on behalf of the Kuwaiti company are transferred to the Panel for consideration.

Subsequently, two telephone interviews were conducted with the claimant.

The claimant (main contractor) appealed against the decision of a lower court, which had referred various disputes between the claimant and the respondent (sub contractor) to arbitration.

The claimant sought from the Court an order of foreclosure.