### Separate Opinions in Case-Specific Applications

1. **Protopapa v. Turkey**:
- Judge Bratza concurred with the majority but dissented on the finding under Article 13, doubting the effectiveness of the remedies available to the applicant (25_335-339, 27_332-336, 37_374-376).

2. **Christodoulidou v. Turkey**:
- Judge Karakaş dissented on the finding of a violation of Article 3, arguing the evidence did not meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard and lacked independent and impartial eyewitnesses (33_278-296).

3. **Androu Papi v. Turkey**:
- Judge Karakaş dissented on the rejection of the Government's objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and disagreed with the finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (37_377-380).

4. **Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden**:
- Judge Botoucharova, joined by Judge Hajiyev, expressed a concurring and partly dissenting opinion, emphasizing the lack of effective judicial remedies, leading to a violation of Article 11 in conjunction with Article 13 (69_285-299).

5. **Case 128**:
- Judges Vladimiro, Zagrebelsky, and András Sajó dissented on the finding of a violation of Article 3, arguing the applicant's injury did not meet the minimum severity required for Article 3 (128_146-151).

6. **Case 141**:
- Judges Pinto de Albuquerque, Turkovic, and Dedov concurred with the finding of a violation of Article 10 but disagreed on the assessment of legality and proportionality of the interference (141_264-302).

7. **Case 144**:
- Judges Joien, Tsotsoria, and Karakas dissented on the finding of a violation of Article 3, arguing the evidence did not support the claim of ill-treatment and the injury did not meet the minimum severity (144_187-194).

8. **Case 164**:
- Judges Vajic and Kovler dissented on the finding of no violation of Article 11, arguing the interference was not prescribed by law and domestic regulations did not meet the quality-of-law requirement (164_175-198).

9. **Case 182**:
- Judge Jociene dissented on the recognition of locus standi for the applicant's son, arguing the son did not have a legitimate or sufficient interest in continuing the proceedings (182_119-162).

10. **Case 197**:
- Judges Myjer and Gyulumyan dissented on the finding of no violation of Article 11, arguing the Minister's statements created an atmosphere of fear and had a chilling effect on the trade union's activities (197_200-230).

11. **Case 208**:
- Judge Keller dissented on the imposition of a fine for non-obedience of police instructions, arguing the fine did not constitute a violation of Article 10. Judge Popović, joined by Judge Berro-Lefèvre, concurred with the majority but suggested revisiting the Court's jurisprudence on the exposure of political symbols (208_195-196, 208_234-237).

12. **Case 227**:
- The dissenting opinion highlighted the inadequacy of domestic remedies and the failure to provide timely judicial review, emphasizing the need for effective judicial remedies for the protection of freedom of assembly (227_12-26).

13. **Case 233**:
- Judges Lemmens and Grițco expressed reservations about the majority's reasoning regarding the foreseeability of the law and its protection against arbitrary interference, suggesting a need for clearer legal standards (233_297-325).

14. **Case 263**:
- Judge Pinto de Albuquerque's concurring opinion addressed the dissemination of anti-Gypsyism and anti-Semitism, emphasizing the international obligation to criminalize racist speech and the necessity of dissolving associations that promote racism (263_297-346).

15. **Case 351**:
- Judge Dedov provided a concurring opinion on the applicability of Article 11 in situations involving violence, criticizing the poor quality of the first-instance judgment (351_297-305).

16. **Case 376**:
- Judge Dedov provided a concurring opinion, noting the applicant's behavior was not violent but an attempt to stop the violence (376_265-269).

17. **Case 377**:
- Judge Dedov provided a dissenting opinion, voting against finding a violation of Article 11 (377_269-270).

18. **Laurijsen and Others v. The Netherlands**:
- The separate opinion addressed the legal basis for the applicants' conviction under the Amsterdam general municipal by-law (APV) and the Public Assemblies Act, emphasizing the importance of proportionality and the need for a fair balance between the right to assembly and the protection of public order (464_246-257, 464_258-269).

19. **Case 591**:
- The dissenting judges argued that the measures taken by the Swiss Government during the COVID-19 pandemic violated Article 11 by systematically forbidding political demonstrations (591_574-579).