GIULIANI AND GAGGIO v. ITALY JUDGMENT 53 12 June 2007, in which the Court ruled out any violation of Article 2 of the Convention, finding that the fatal bullet had ricocheted before hitting the applicants' relative). 193. However, in the instant case the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the well-foundedness of the “intermediate object theory”, on which there was disagreement between the experts who conducted the third set of ballistics tests, the applicants' experts and the findings of the autopsy report (see paragraphs 60-62, 66 and 50 above). It simply observes that, as the Genoa investigating judge rightly remarked (see paragraph 92 above), and as shown by the photographs, M.P.'s field of vision was restricted by the jeep's spare wheel, since he was half-lying or crouched on the floor of the vehicle. Given that, in spite of his warnings, the demonstrators were persisting in their attack and that the danger he faced – in particular, a likely second attempt to throw a fire extinguisher at him – was imminent, M.P. could only fire, in order to defend himself, into the narrow space between the spare wheel and the roof of the jeep. The fact that a shot fired into that space risked causing injury to one of the assailants, or even killing him, as was sadly the case, does not in itself mean that the defensive action was excessive or disproportionate. 194. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that in the instant case the use of lethal force was absolutely necessary “in defence of any person from unlawful violence” within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 (a) of the Convention (see paragraph 176 above). 195. It follows that there has been no violation of Article 2 in its substantive aspect in this regard. 196. This finding makes it unnecessary for the Court to consider whether the use of force was also unavoidable “in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection” within the meaning of sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 2 of Article 2. B. Whether the respondent State took the necessary legislative, administrative and regulatory measures to reduce as far as possible the adverse consequences of the use of force 197. As they had done before the Chamber, the applicants also complained of deficiencies in the domestic legislative framework. The Government contested their arguments. The Chamber did not address these issues.