### Separate Opinions in Case-Specific Contexts

#Case 208
Judge Keller dissented on the imposition of a fine for non-obedience of police instructions, arguing that the fine did not violate Article 10 of the Convention in this case (208_195-196). 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_234-237).

#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).

#Case 464
The separate opinion addressed the legal basis for the applicants' conviction under the Amsterdam general municipal by-law (APV) and the Public Assemblies Act. The judge agreed with the majority that the applicants' actions fell within the scope of Article 11 and that the interference with their rights was not justified. However, the judge added that the legal basis for the interference was not adequately established, as the provisions of the Public Assemblies Act were not applied correctly (464_246-257).

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

#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).

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

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

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

#Case 351
Judge Dedov provided a concurring opinion, expressing his views on the applicability of Article 11 in situations involving violence, referencing his previous opinion in the "Bolotnaya case" (Barabanov v. Russia). Despite his consistent views on the applicability of Article 11, he voted with the majority because he was not convinced that the charges against the applicant were proven in court and believed the applicant did not receive a fair trial. He criticized the poor quality of the first-instance judgment, which lacked material evidence and relied on vague police statements. He highlighted the systemic problem of poor-quality criminal verdicts and emphasized the need for the Supreme Court's instructions on verdict content to be implemented more rigorously (351_297-305).

#Case 376
Judge Dedov again provided a concurring opinion, voting with the majority to find a violation of Article 11. He based his opinion on his previous views expressed in the Barabanov v. Russia case. In this case, the applicant was severely beaten by police officers, and Judge Dedov noted that the applicant's behavior was not violent but rather an attempt to stop the violence. He differentiated this case from Barabanov and Zimin v. Russia, emphasizing the non-violent nature of the applicant's actions (376_265-269).

#Case 377
Judge Dedov provided a dissenting opinion, voting against finding a violation of Article 11. He referenced his dissenting opinion in the Barabanov v. Russia case, maintaining his consistent stance on the issue (377_269-270).

#Case 25
Judge Bratza expressed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the majority on most points but dissenting on the finding under Article 13. He doubted the effectiveness of the remedies available to the applicant but deferred to the majority opinion (25_335-339, 27_332-336, 37_374-376).

#Case 33
Judge Karakaş dissented on the finding of a violation of Article 3, arguing that the evidence did not meet the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" and highlighting the lack of independent and impartial eyewitnesses (33_278-296).

#Case 69
Judge Botoucharova, joined by Judge Hajiyev, expressed a concurring and partly dissenting opinion, emphasizing the lack of effective judicial remedies for the applicants, which led to a violation of Article 11 in conjunction with Article 13 (69_285-299).