Showing 485 results

Additional observations submitted on behalf of the applicant in the Şarlı case on 25 January 1996, primarily consisting of a paper, 'Child Soldiers in Turkey and the Kurdish Conflict', presented for the Quaker United National Office in Geneva by researcher/journalist İsmet G. İmset on 30 November 1995.

Adhesive Post-It notes written by Essex team members pertaining to the Timurtaş case. The notes were originally placed on the inside front cover of the File 1 binder. As per the file's table of contents, Tab 1 originally contained the case correspondence before it outgrew the File 1 binder and was moved to its own separate file (A44/43/1/57/3).

Decision published by the European Commission of Human Rights unanimously deeming the application of Şükran Aydın against Turkey admissible.

Published report of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Akkoç case.

Decision published by the European Commission of Human Rights unanimously deeming the application of Akdivar and others against Turkey admissible, as well as the dissenting opinion of two judges.

Decision published by the European Commission of Human Rights unanimously deeming the application of Akdeniz and others against Turkey admissible.

52 colour slides containing aerial photographs of Galway city.

2 aerial photographs of a peninsula in Aghnish Lough, County Donegal.

Aisling Reidy's personal file on the Akkoç case, including copies of correspondence sent to the Essex team from the European Court of Human Rights pertaining to the case, the Report of the Commission on the case (full text available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-46171), the Government's memorial, and materials pertaining to related Kurdish Litigation Project cases.

Materials pertaining to the claims for damages made on behalf of the applicants in the Akdivar and others case (A44/43/12), including notes, correspondence from Tony Fisher (fax paper has faded, making legibility difficult), schedules of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the observations of the Turkish Government on the claims, and the response of the applicants to the observations. These documents were presumably used as guides for claims to be made in the Selçuk and Asker case.