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.

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

matching claims Two or more claims filed by a claimant during the regular filing period and under the late claims programme.

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.

C6 Support claims are for the loss of financial support to the claimant.

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.

Four of these claims were filed as category D claims in the regular claims programme, while the fifth claimant filed a category C claim in this late claims programme.

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.

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.

With respect to the fourth set of claims identified as potentially competing claims, the Pakistani category C claimant and a Palestinian category D claimant each filed for losses in connection with a motor vehicle spare parts business.

C3 Death claims seek compensation for the death of a spouse, child or parent of the claimant.

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.

Questions were asked of the four category D Pakistani claimants and the category C claimant to determine whether their claims are in respect of the same business as the category C claimant.

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

Although five claims were deferred, two of these five claims were filed by the same claimant, and only one of these two contained a competing business loss, leaving four claims for investigation by the Panel.

In the second set of competing claims, a Kuwaiti category D claimant and a Pakistani category C claimant filed separate claims with the Commission seeking compensation for the losses of the same construction business that operated in Kuwait prior to Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

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

Each claimant was asked to comment on the assertions and evidence submitted by the other in the light of their competing 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.

Documentary evidence provided by claimants in the sample claims reviewed was examined to ensure that it did not render the claimant ineligible.

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

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

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.

The Panel notes that the category A claim form included an option for a claimant to select higher lump sum amounts provided that he or she agreed not to submit claims in any other claims category.

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

In such cases, the Panel considered the particular circumstances of the claimant in determining whether he or she was eligible to participate in the late claims programme.

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.

These claims lack either the claimant's signature or evidence of authority to act on the part of the individual who filed the claim on behalf of the claimant.

Article 14 of the Rules provides that one of the formal requirements for claims filed with the Commission is that all required affirmations have been given by each claimant .

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,

(m) Competing claimant means

(gg) Competing claimant means

Recommendation 110 (competing claimant)

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

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.

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

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.