Separate opinions are aggregated in the conclusion

[aquemy]

Separate opinions should be in a separate paragraph and not in the conclusion.
In addition, we should add to each case as meta-data, the list of judges providing a separate opinion.

The opinions can be dissenting or concurring, and can be submitted by a single judge or several judges at the same time.

Examples:

1. Single judges, all dissenting: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22\%22CASE%20OF%20AKDENIZ%20AND%20OTHERS%20v.%20TURKEY\%22%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-59482%22]}
2. Joint dissenting opinion: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%2250963/99%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-60522%22]}
3. Joint dissenting, joint concurring, single judge dissenting: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22CASE%20OF%20K.%20AND%20T.%20v.%20FINLAND%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-59587%22]}

This will allow to study the distribution of separate opinions before and after the 2010 reform which changes the way judges are appointed (6 years term with re-election to 9 years mandate without re-election).