Examples of using Claimant explained in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
During the Mission, the claimant explained that all of these costs were incurred from 17 August 1991 to 31 December 1993.
With respect to the first claim described at paragraph where payment under a letter of credit issued by an Iraqi bank and confirmed by a confirmed letter of credit United Kingdom bank was not made,the Panel notes that in response to the Panel's inquiry, the claimant explained that both the Iraqi issuing bank and the United Kingdom confirming bank refused to pay the letter of credit due to a discrepancy in the documents that were presented by the claimant. .
The Claimant explained that in order to provide relief, it formed a committee which specified the amount to be paid to the refugees and Al Khafji citizens.
In its response to the article 34 notification, the Claimant explained that the claim was based on estimates that were themselves based on certain unspecified"complicated data.
The claimant explained that, following Iraq's invasion, he and his family went into hiding in Kuwait, where they remained until their departure for Saudi Arabia in mid-August 1990.
In response to additional claim development, the claimant explained that the supplier had changed business premises and that his witness statement referred to his purchases from the newly relocated store.
The claimant explained that he was in Kuwait in February 1991 when the losses occurred, but that his son witnessed the damages to the farm during the Allied Coalition Forces bombing.
During the on-site inspection, the Claimant explained that the claim related to heavy duty uniforms that were not distributed to staff under normal circumstances.
The claimant explained that in 1986 or 1987, her daughter took photographs of her significant jewellery items in order to help facilitate the process of choosing which jewellery items to wear.
In its supplemental response, however, the Claimant explained that in some cases it had sold the household goods of staff members in 1992 and used the proceeds to pay various Embassy expenditures.
The claimant explained that in an attempt to mitigate his business losses, he melted his stock into gold bars, painted them, hid them in the air-conditioning unit of his vehicle and fled Kuwait in this vehicle.
In response to claims development, the claimant explained that the total of 200 horses stated on the inoculation certificate did not include horses under 24 months of age, or horses that may have been previously vaccinated a month or two before, or that were under medical treatment.
The claimant explained that there was no precise schedule for the conversion and remittance of the funds but that a detailed process had been established over the years to implement transfers from Iraq to the United States.
During the on-site inspection, the Claimant explained that two water sources were available in the region- ground water and desalination plants- and that one source could be substituted for the other in event of emergency, such as pollution of the Persian Gulf waters.
The claimant explained that the gold was not held for trading purposes, hence, there was no movement of the stock, and accordingly, it could not provide a roll-forward calculation to support the holding of this particular stock.
During the Mission, the claimant explained that in some cases used vehicles purchased by the claimant for trade would not be registered in its name because it intended to resell them shortly afterwards.
In its response, the Claimant explained that the settlement works and infrastructure services were carried out during the period February to May 1991, and that the refugees remained in Turkey for approximately two years after their arrival.
The Claimant explained in its response to the article 34 notification that"displaced citizens" refers to citizens mainly from the eastern part of Saudi Arabia who abandoned their homes and sought refuge in the central region.
The claimant explained that it was only Dianoor that recorded the sales from the Consigned Goods and that the value of the Consigned Goods was included as part of its"long-term liability" as indicated in the notes to the same pre-invasion audited accounts.
The Claimant explained that, during a review of its original claim, it became clear that portions of the original claim either were not compensable in principle in the light of Governing Council decisions or could not be supported by the necessary documentation.
The claimant explained that when news of the invasion broke, the family left for their home in Kuwait City in order to be closer to news sources and they left their jewellery behind in their summer villa, which was shortly thereafter occupied by Iraqi soldiers.
The claimant explained that it had suffered extraordinary losses during these financial years, which it contended should not be taken into account in determining IPG's historical profitability. IPG alleged that the extraordinary losses arose from three separate causes.
During the on-site inspection, the Claimant explained that although J&P contracted directly with the Claimant in relation to the KFIA construction works and sought compensation for its losses directly from the Claimant, SABCO had submitted J&P's claim to the Commission in accordance with SABCO's responsibility for all aspects of the KFIA construction and management project, as set out in the General Conditions of the Project and Construction Services Agreement with the Claimant regarding the International Airports Project"IAP.
The Claimant explains that its personnel are divided into two categories, office personnel and field personnel.
The Claimant explains that"[c]omponents of army battalions… and of an air force squadron… were deployed in Iran[from] 2nd May to 22nd June 1991.
The claimant explains that the debtor died after the invasion and occupation and that the latter's heirs sold the mortgaged house to repay the loan but only realized US$657,439.
The Claimant explains that, following the invasion, because of the blockade of the airport, it was impossible to recover the property.
The Claimant explains that, following the invasion of Kuwait, all bank accounts at the National Bank of Kuwait were frozen and no interest was paid in respect of the period of the occupation.
The Claimant explains that payments were made to 90 per cent of the 2,260 evacuees who arrived from Iraq and Kuwait in the months following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
The Claimant explains that the bulk of Thai workers in Kuwait and Iraq were evacuated in the period from 2 August 1990 to 11 October 1991.