Showing 46791 results

Archival description
708 results with digital objects Show results with digital objects
Tailliúr arteach mé
UGA G/G20/1/2/512 · Item · [190-]
Part of Irish Language

"Handwritten drafts of song beginning ""Tailliúr arteach mé"". Connacht and Sligo song, index 143."

UGA G/G17/2/105/773 · Item · [1982]
Part of Irish Language

"Copy of the play ""Taibhsí"", by an tSuir Máire, to be staged by her class for Slogadh, with handwritten amendments by Eoghan Ó Tuairisc [in Irish]."

Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe
UGA T/T1 · Collection · 1928-1990
Part of Theatre

This collection was acquired for the Library in 1990 by Mr Christy Townley, former Librarian of the James Hardiman Library, who had served for many years on the Board of Directors of the theatre. As well as material from the theatre itself, Mr. Townley provided copies of programmes and photographs from his own collection to allow as full a picture as possible of the theatre to emerge. Further transfers of material for later years have taken place from the theatre.

UGA A/A44/43/3/2/2 · Item · 2001/12/17
Part of Academic

Observations authored by Philip Leach, Reyhan Yalçındağ, and Cihan Aydın regarding the Turkish Government's request to the European Court of Human Rights to strike out the application (application no. 26307/95) of Tahsin Acar lodged on behalf of his brother, Mehmet Salim Acar. Mehmet Salim Acar had disappeared on 20 August 1994, when he was abducted by two unidentified persons – allegedly plain-clothes police officers. Tahsin Acar complained of the unlawfulness and excessive length of his brother’s detention, of the ill-treatment and acts of torture to which his brother had allegedly been subjected while in detention, and of the failure to provide his brother with the necessary medical care in detention. Tahsin Acar further complained that his brother had been deprived of the services of a lawyer and of all contact with his family. On 27 August 2001, the Government requested the Court to strike the case out of its list and enclosed the text of a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant. In the observations, it is contended that, 'it is not appropriate to use Article 37 to dispose of an application on the basis of a declaration that does not admit the breach of the fundamental human rights alleged in the application', and that, 'It would be unfair and unjust by the use of the Court's powers under Article 37 to permit the Government to "dispose" of this application by payment ex gratia of a sum of money and a very restricted declaration, and to impose the Government's terms upon the applicant who for good and proper reasons does not wish to accept them.'

Tahir Elçi and others
UGA A/A44/43/6/35 · File · 1991-2000
Part of Academic

Supplementary materials pertaining to the cases filed by Tahir Elçi, Nevzat Kaya, Şinasi Tur, Sabahattin Acar, Niyazi Çem, Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Mesut Beştaş, Vedat Erten, Baki Demırhan, Arif Altinkalem, Gazanfer Abbasioğlu, Fuat Hayri Demır, and Hüsniye Ölmez on 21 December 1993 and by İmam Şahin and Arzu Şahin on 28 April 1994 (the applications were joined together on 9 September 1994) against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application numbers 23145/93 and 25091/94, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 85 and assigned to Kevin Boyle and Françoise Hampson as leads, later succeeded by Timothy Otty and Philip Leach). Materials in this file include: correspondence between Tim Otty and Aisling Reidy, including drafts of Otty's proposed final submissions in the cases sent to Reidy for comments and thoughts; Otty's working notes on the cases; press releases from the Council of Europe and the Kurdish Human Rights Project; human rights reports submitted as appendices on behalf of the applicants; a chronology of domestic proceedings against the applicants prepared by Otty; and the further observations of the applicant submitted 5 March 1997. The verbatim record of the 2 December 1996 hearing in the cases is present but closed for access until 1 November 2073, as are translation of appendices submitted by the Turkish Government. Materials from the main casefile are located at A44/43/1/28.
The applicants, who were all Turkish lawyers, alleged that in November and December 1993 they were taken into detention by law enforcement officers on the pretext of involvement in criminal activities (being members of the outlawed Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK)), but in reality because they had represented clients before the State Security Court and been involved in human rights work. Some of the applicants also claimed that they were tortured and otherwise ill-treated whilst in detention. Subsequent domestic proceedings against the applicants in Diyarbakır State Security Court resulted in the production of a global statement by the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie commander accusing each the applicants of various crimes aiding and abetting the PKK, primarily based upon the testimony of Abdülhakim Güven, a PKK confessor benefiting from the Remorse Law. Between 1994 and 1998, the hearings in the domestic proceedings showed constant adjournments and certain procedural decisions, with the case eventually being stalled due to the non-appearance of certain key witnesses.
Kevin Boyle and Françoise Hampson were the original legal representatives before the Court in this case. On 23 June 2000, they stood down in favour of Timothy Otty and Philip Leach of the Kurdish Human Rights Project.
On 13 November 2003, the European Court of Human Rights ruled:

  • by 6 votes to 1, that there has been both a substantive and procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the case of the applicants Tahir Elçi, Niyazi Çem, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Hüsniye Ölmez, Şinasi Tur, Sabahattin Acar, Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu, Mesut Beştaş and Vedat Erten;
  • unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the case of each of the applicants;
  • unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the case of the applicants Tahir Elçi, Şinasi Tur, Sabahattin Acar, Niyazi Çem and Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu;
  • unanimously, that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants' complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
  • unanimously, that there has been no violation of former Article 25 of the Convention.
    The applicants were awarded varying figures totalling hundreds of thousands of euro in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and legal costs.
    The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61442
Tahir Elçi and others
UGA A/A44/43/1/28 · Sub-sub-series · 1991-2000
Part of Academic

Materials pertaining to the cases filed by Tahir Elçi, Nevzat Kaya, Şinasi Tur, Sabahattin Acar, Niyazi Çem, Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Mesut Beştaş, Vedat Erten, Baki Demırhan, Arif Altinkalem, Gazanfer Abbasioğlu, Fuat Hayri Demır, and Hüsniye Ölmez on 21 December 1993 and by İmam Şahin and Arzu Şahin on 28 April 1994 (the applications were joined together on 9 September 1994) against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application numbers 23145/93 and 25091/94, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 85 and assigned to Kevin Boyle and Françoise Hampson as leads, later succeeded by Timothy Otty and Philip Leach). Supplementary materials pertaining to this case are located at A44/43/6/35.
The applicants, who were all Turkish lawyers, alleged that in November and December 1993 they were taken into detention by law enforcement officers on the pretext of involvement in criminal activities (being members of the outlawed Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK)), but in reality because they had represented clients before the State Security Court and been involved in human rights work. Some of the applicants also claimed that they were tortured and otherwise ill-treated whilst in detention. Subsequent domestic proceedings against the applicants in Diyarbakır State Security Court resulted in the production of a global statement by the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie commander accusing each the applicants of various crimes aiding and abetting the PKK, primarily based upon the testimony of Abdülhakim Güven, a PKK confessor benefiting from the Remorse Law. Between 1994 and 1998, the hearings in the domestic proceedings showed constant adjournments and certain procedural decisions, with the case eventually being stalled due to the non-appearance of certain key witnesses.
Kevin Boyle and Françoise Hampson were the original legal representatives before the Court in this case. On 23 June 2000, they stood down in favour of Timothy Otty and Philip Leach of the Kurdish Human Rights Project.
On 13 November 2003, the European Court of Human Rights ruled:

  • by 6 votes to 1, that there has been both a substantive and procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the case of the applicants Tahir Elçi, Niyazi Çem, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Hüsniye Ölmez, Şinasi Tur, Sabahattin Acar, Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu, Mesut Beştaş and Vedat Erten;
  • unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the case of each of the applicants;
  • unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the case of the applicants Tahir Elçi, Şinasi Tur, Sabahattin Acar, Niyazi Çem and Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu;
  • unanimously, that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants' complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
  • unanimously, that there has been no violation of former Article 25 of the Convention.
    The applicants were awarded varying figures totalling hundreds of thousands of euro in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and legal costs.
    The full judgment is available for viewing at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61442
Tadhg S Seoige to U Ó Brian
UGA G/G4/1/2/3/139 · Item · 3 Sep 1923
Part of Irish Language

Copy letter from Tadhg S Seoige, Cill Rónáin, Árainn, Co na Gaillimhe, to U Ó Brian, Rúnaidhe, Choiste na Leabhar, Roinn an Oideachois, Baile Átha Cliath, thanking him for his letter of the 27th August. He is surprised that they do not have enough books in Irish, as states “…agus go bhfuil súil agam go mbéidh an tear-is-barr déanta suas agam le na chur chugat faoi cheann míosa no sé seachtnainighe”.

Tadhg Seoighe