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

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.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012259 the claimant seeks compensation of USD 4,930,795 for business losses.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012105, the claimant did not include audited accounts in his original claim submission.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3011224 the claimant asserted, in addition to her own losses, a salary loss on behalf of her husband.

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

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.

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

Contract None of the claims in this instalment seek compensation for a loss of contracts.

In UNCC claim No. 3011755 the claimant seeks compensation for the losses of a jewellery and money exchange business in Kuwait.

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.

In the fifth instalment of category A claims, four claims were found to be duplicates of claims previously awarded compensation.

Of the 24 company claims in this instalment, 19 are stand alone claims four are corporate detainee claims and one is an E2 claim.

There are 4 such claims reported in the fourth instalment.

Specifically, the secretariat, in valuing the claimant's D6 (loss of income) claim, incorrectly treated it as a duplicate of the claimant's C6 (salary loss) claim, resulting in an erroneous reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant for his C6 claim.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012049 a claimant asserted losses in the amount of USD 265,034 in connection with a spare parts business.

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

In its First Report, the Panel determined that claimants who filed claims during the regular filing period in the same claim category had a full and effective opportunity to file claims with the Commission at that time.

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.

Duplicate claims are two or more claims filed by an individual in the same claims category.

In twofive of the individual claims identified as potentially overlapping with E4 claims, the Panel considers that the claim wass were not overlapping as the individual claimant was weres claiming losses that were related to the E4 claimant companies but were not overlapping losses (for example, where the individual claimant is seeking compensation for a loss of salary or management fee from the E4 claimant).

Iran, therefore, could have included these claim units in the submissions that it filed within these deadlines.

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.

The monitoring and assessment claims of Iran that were awarded funding in the first F4 instalment and are relevant to claim No. 5000286 are claim Nos. 5000343, 5000344, 5000347, 5000383, 5000420, 5000425, 5000427 and 5000428.

At times the claim preparers appeared to be more familiar with the claims than the claimants.

In the view of the Panel, this should involve the services of a qualified senior epidemiologist.

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.

However, 14 of these claimants filed duplicative claims in the bedoun programme, reducing the number of claims filed by such claimants to 29,051.

However, 11 of these claimants filed duplicative claims in the bedoun programme, reducing the number of claims filed by such claimants to 387.

However, 10 of these claimants filed duplicative claims in the bedoun programme, reducing the number of claims filed by such claimants to 1,436.

Noting also that the failure of these first in time competing claimants to return the overpayments has resulted in a situation where second in time competing claimants have ongoing competing claims related suspensions on payments,

In the third instalment of category A claims, four claims were found to be duplicates of claims previously awarded compensation.

In one claim, a husband who filed a category A claim during the regular filing period explained that he was unable to file a category C claim at the same time because no claim forms were available.

The secretariat identified 25 category A claims filed by the Government of the Sudan for a high amount by claimants that had also filed claims in other claim categories.

During the course of its review of claims in the special instalment, the Panel identified one claim that included D8 D9 (individual business) losses in respect of two ready made clothing businesses that were also the subject of a category D claim filed by an Indian claimant in the regular claims programme, which was awarded compensation.

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

Claimants whose spouses filed claims during the regular filing period

In the third instalment, there were 3,266 ineligible claims that were reported on account of matching claims in the regular filing period.

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

One claim in the sixth instalment was found to be a duplicate of a claim awarded compensation in the fifth instalment.

The Panel is of the view that in a late claims programme, there is a risk that third parties not eligible for late filing may attempt to claim their own losses through claimants in this instalment.

The monitoring and assessment claim of Jordan that was awarded funding in the first F4 instalment and is relevant to claim No. 5000464 is claim No. 5000353.

During that time, notifications were issued in respect of 28,911 claims, representing per cent of the total claims population, to elicit further information concerning the claimants' reasons for late filing.

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.