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.

It records basic details about the claimant and notes what available evidence, if any, was provided by the claimant.

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.

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

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.

If the claimant responds by giving an explanation as to which assets the equity loss relates, the Panel values the losses alleged by the claimant in relation to those assets.

The buyer (claimant), confirmed the sale concluded over the phone by registered mail.

The Pakistani claimant asserts that he and the Kuwaiti claimant were partners in the business.

On the basis of the evidence provided by the claimant, the loss is compensable.

Second, the Panel must verify whether the loss was actually suffered by the claimant.

Where the required affirmation has not been given by the claimant, the Rules provide that the claimant should be notified so that he or she may remedy the defect.

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.

Iraq alleged that the claimant did not object to the confiscation of his stock by Iraqi authorities and that the claimant may have been a collaborator with Iraqi forces.

The Panel finds that the category C claimant did not assert any losses additional to those previously claimed by the E4 claimant and did not provide any new evidence.

The Panel considered the evidence originally provided by the individual claimant and his subsequent responses.

The claimant provided witness statements attesting to his detention and abuse by Iraqi soldiers.

(m) Competing claimant means

(gg) Competing claimant means

Recommendation 110 (competing claimant)

Some of these identifiers are included in the claim form submitted by the claimant the remaining data is taken from the evidence provided by a claimant either in the original claim or in response to claim development notifications.

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.

The individual claimant whose claim had been identified as potentially overlapping with the E4 claim provided additional evidence and claimed for losses in addition to those losses claimed by the E4 claimant.

While residing in Kuwait, the Pakistani claimant did not turn up for interviews scheduled by the secretariat.

The burden of proof was on the claimant.

While the Panel noted that the claimant had not signed the submission that included the fabricated documents, the Panel finds that the claimant is responsible for the evidence submitted to the Commission by his authorized representative.

The evidence adduced by the claimant does not permit the Panel to verify and value that amount precisely.

The claimant provided confirmation from an independent auditing firm that the claimant holds currency to the amount of KWD 4,740,102, all of which bear serial numbers that were cancelled by the Central Bank of Kuwait.

No response was received from the Kuwaiti claimant.

The respondent objected that the claimant was barred, because the matter had already been settled by the arbitral award.

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.

With respect to the remaining claim, the only evidence provided by the claimant to prove his authority to file a claim on behalf of the company was a business card describing the claimant as Executive Director Partner and a lease in the name of three individuals who the claimant described as the corporate shareholders.

The individual claimant whose claim had been identified as potentially overlapping with the E4 claim provided additional evidence (motor vehicle deregistration certificates) and claimed for losses in addition to those losses claimed by the E4 claimant.

This recommendation was subsequently approved by the Governing Council and the award has been paid to the Jordanian claimant.

If a claimant apos s case did not correspond to the conditions of compensation laid down by the law, the claimant could appeal to the ordinary courts, which were not bound by pre established time limits for the amount of compensation to be awarded.

duplicate claims Two or more claims filed by a claimant under the late claims programme in the same category.

Subsequently, two telephone interviews were conducted with the claimant.

Based on the above, the Panel finds that the category D claim filed by the individual claimant was in respect of losses of the business of the E4 claimant and not in respect of a separate and unrelated business.

The documentary evidence submitted by the Pakistani category C claimant includes a pre invasion lease agreement for the business premises.

The claimant sought from the Court an order of foreclosure.

The stay was granted, but the claimant appealed against it.

The claimant further requested the Court to appoint his nominee.

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 family of the Kuwaiti shareholder also submitted a letter dated 11 June 2004 from the auditor who had prepared the audited statements provided by the individual claimant, which stated that these accounts had been prepared on the basis of documents given to them by the individual claimant.

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