The one individual claim that was not filed through the Palestinian late claims programme was originally filed in the regular filing period for individual claims.

This compares with an incidence of 48 per cent in the regular category D claims programme as a whole 69 per cent in the regular category D claims filed by Jordan and 44 per cent in the regular category D claims filed by Kuwait.

Category A corrections higher to lower amounts Family to individual The Government of the Philippines reported that 17 claims originally filed as family claims were in fact individual claims.

A preliminary examination of these claims revealed that some, but not all, of the Kuwaiti companies in issue had filed claims with the Commission, which were being processed as E4 claims.

A preliminary examination of these claims also revealed that in some instances the Kuwaiti companies in question had filed separate claims with the Commission, which were being processed as E4 claims. However, there were a number of instances where the Kuwaiti company had not filed a separate claim with the Commission.

Decision concerning the late filed category A and category C claims programme

As the category D Palestinian late claims were not filed until the end of the regular category D work programme, matches between regular and Palestinian category D claims were identified upon review of the latter claims.

The Palestinian Authority filed a total of 2,374 category D claims under the programme.

In addition, as a result of the review of category D deceased detainee claims filed by the Government of Kuwait, the secretariat found one matching category A claim submitted by the Government of Iran under the regular claims programme that had been filed for a higher amount in category A .

Well over half (92) of the 160 known claims were filed within the past three years.

Following the technical missions, the Panel checked whether the auditing firms had themselves filed claims with the Commission.

The term stand alone claims is defined in decision 123 of the Governing Council (S AC.26 Dec.123(2001)) and refers to claims filed by individuals in categories C and D for direct losses sustained by Kuwaiti companies, where the Kuwaiti company has not filed a claim in category E for such losses (the stand alone claims ).

2.4 In 1994, the author filed two separate restitution claims with regard to his houses in Letkov and Plzen.

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 Governing Council determined that all of the claims were to be filed with the Commission by 31 March 2004.

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.

Further discussion of these claims and whether they have been validly filed is set out in section VI of this report.

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

Therefore, Governments would increasingly have to defend their investors' interests abroad while protecting themselves against claims filed by foreign investors domestically.

Having received, in accordance with article 37 of the Provisional Rules for Claims Procedure ( the Rules ), the report and recommendations made by the D1 panel of Commissioners concerning the late filed category A and category C claims programme, covering 3,783 claims,

The Panel notes the Palestinian Panel of Commissioners, in reviewing the eligibility of claims filed through the Palestinian late claims programme, raised concerns about irregularities in documents provided by some individual claimants.

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.

The Panel specifically notes that in the Special report and recommendations made by the D1' Panel of Commissioners concerning thirty claims filed pursuant to Governing Council decision 12 (S AC.26 1992 12) (S AC.26 2004 12), the D1 Panel made recommendations in respect of 30 claims filed in the B and C claims categories for personal injuries suffered as a result of explosions of landmines and other ordnance in Kuwait after 2 March 1991.

Moreover, the buyer claimed that the seller, in the course of their dealings, had not objected to claims for damages filed untimely.

Having received, in accordance with article 37 of the Provisional Rules for Claims Procedure ( the Rules ), the second report and recommendations made by the D1 panel of Commissioners concerning the late filed category A and category C claims programme, covering 339 claims,

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.

This instalment also includes one category C overlapping claim filed under the Palestinian late claims programme that was reviewed by the Panel as the merged E4 Panel had concluded its work programme.

3.1 The complainant claims that he has exhausted all available criminal domestic remedies by having filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor's Office.

The individual category C and D claims in the thirtieth instalment are claims filed through a late claims programme established by the Governing Council for Palestinians who can demonstrate that they did not have a full and effective opportunity to file claims with the Commission during its filing period for individual claims from 1 January 1992 to 1 January 1996 (the regular filing period for individual claims ).

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 addition, he did not have access to Israeli information on the exact number of injury claims filed against the Israeli Government before the courts.

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.

Category C corrections duplicate claims Discrepancies between the electronic and paper claim formats The secretariat continued to review requests for corrections submitted by Governments within the final deadline of 31 December 2002 that was set by the Governing Council for category C claims filed under the regular claims programme.

While this claim had originally been filed during the regular claims filing period, it was identified as being a claim pertaining to the losses of a non Kuwaiti corporate entity at a time when it was too late to be included in an E2 Panel report within the regular claims programme.

The first two requirements had to be fulfilled during the time period in which restitution claims could be filed, between 1 April and 1 October 1991.

Several indictments filed during 2004 included organized crime offences as well as trafficking offences.

These reports were circulated to the members of the Governing Council, to governments that have filed claims with the Commission and to the Government of the Republic of Iraq ( Iraq ).

As a result of further information received from the Governments of India, Pakistan and the Philippines, one claim submitted by the Government of India, one claim submitted by the Government of Pakistan and 22 claims submitted by the Government of the Philippines have been identified as having been filed for a higher amount in category A by a claimant who had also filed a claim in another claim category.

These judicial proceedings are as relevant and as important as when the Australian application was filed.

Third, the Panel noted that two claimants who filed competing claims for the same business provided audited financial statements from the same auditing firm for the same year with different figures.

Recalling that pursuant to articles 38 (a) and (b) of the Provisional Rules for Claims Procedure (S AC.26 1992 10), the Governing Council encouraged the adoption of consolidation and other administrative procedures to facilitate the resolution of nearly 2.7 million claims filed with the Commission,

As a result of the computer programme and manual follow up, 37,850 category A claims were identified as confirmed duplicate claims during the course of claims processing.

He wondered how many claims had been filed against the Israel Defense Forces for allegedly inflicting physical harm in military detention centres and whether the allegedly guilty parties were actually being prosecuted.

Several of the claims were filed by claimants who lived in Iraq and worked or had business interests in Iraq and who departed from Iraq either during or after the jurisdictional period.

Her appeal was ultimately dismissed as having been filed outside the statutory deadline.