SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS not carry the same weight anymore (see also paragraph 3 of the dissenting opinion by Judge Seibert-Fohr et al.). We regret that the majority have disregarded the effects of the passage of time and that, in any event, they have failed to require of the Government concrete details in relation to the economic difficulties on which they continue to rely. IX. CONCLUSION 26. For the reasons stated above, we are not convinced that there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Convention. We see no reason why the Court should depart from its holding in Andrejeva. 27. We would like to add that we are conscious of the seriousness of the problems related to dealing with the past. The past may constitute an enormous challenge for any society, as it surely is for Latvian society. However, we are afraid that the present judgment will not advance matters, or facilitate the manner in which those challenges are faced. 89