Neither the Reconstruction Department nor the Finance Department were aware of this. representing almost 30% by value of total EUAM payments for the period 23 July 1994 to 31 August 1995, provided evidence of weak procedures in the EUAM, notably: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) - (f) (g) (22) eleven of the contracts examined were unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons, including poor drafting, absence of signatures or dates of signature, omission of completion dates, thus rendering penalty clauses inoperative: also, different departments used different contract formats; there was a lack of. standard ordering procedures, without specific provisions for such matters as delivery conditions: some orders provided insufficient technical specifications; although formal tendering procedures existed, there' was room for improvement, notably in the opening . and recording of offers; .'. . payments could be made on the Mostar banks with one signature only; a few cases were noted where cash payments in one case of DM 500 000 were given to an official of the East Mostar local authority instead of to the contractual beneficiary, without any authorization having been given by the beneficiary; in 25 out of 70 payments, the supporting documents presented to Finance and Taxes were inadequate: for example, faxed. or photocopied invoices were used without certification of their conformity to the original, and ' without ensuring that further copies could not be presented (22), in some cases there was no copy of the order or its acceptance; there was frequently little evidence that checks had been properly carried out by the responsible department" on invoices prior to submission to Finance and Taxes: indeed,. 
Neither the Reconstruction Department nor the Finance Department were aware of this. representing almost 30% by value of total EUAM payments for the period 23 July 1994 to 31 August 1995, provided evidence of weak procedures in the EUAM, notably: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) - (f) (g) (22) eleven of the contracts examined were unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons, including poor drafting, absence of signatures or dates of signature, omission of completion dates, thus rendering penalty clauses inoperative: also, different departments used different contract formats; there was a lack of. standard ordering procedures, without specific provisions for such matters as delivery conditions: some orders provided insufficient technical specifications; although formal tendering procedures existed, there' was room for improvement, notably in the opening . and recording of offers; .'. . payments could be made on the Mostar banks with one signature only; a few cases were noted where cash payments in one case of DM 500 000 were given to an official of the East Mostar local authority instead of to the contractual beneficiary, without any authorization having been given by the beneficiary; in 25 out of 70 payments, the supporting documents presented to Finance and Taxes were inadequate: for example, faxed. or photocopied invoices were used without certification of their conformity to the original, and ' without ensuring that further copies could not be presented (22), in some cases there was no copy of the order or its acceptance; there was frequently little evidence that checks had been properly carried out by the responsible department" on invoices prior to submission to Finance and Taxes: indeed,.