42 MAKARATZIS v. GREECE JUDGMENT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE TSATSANIKOLOVSKA JOINED BY JUDGE STRÁŽNICKÁ1 I regret that I am unable to share the opinion of the majority of the Court regarding its finding of a violation of Article 2 in respect of the State’s obligation to protect the applicant’s right to life by law and that no separate issue arises under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention. I consider that, given the actual circumstances of the incident which put the applicant’s life at risk, it is impossible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a violation of Article 2 in substance. The case-law of the Court establishes that it is only in exceptional circumstances that physical ill-treatment by State agents which does not result in death may disclose a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. I accept that there are exceptional circumstances in the present case which bring Article 2 into play, because the applicant’s life was put at risk by the lethal means used by the police officers to stop his car and arrest him, but in the circumstances of the case I have some doubts that there are enough well-established facts to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a violation of Article 2 in substance. I consider that in this case it is necessary to have a clear picture of the incident for the purpose of assessing whether there has been a possible violation of Article 2 in substance. In the present case, I think that the Court should deal with the question of the police officers’ conduct during the incident, namely their identification as participants in the chase, their use of firearms from beginning to end, including the actions of the operational units of patrol cars and motorcycles, the actions of the control centre, their instructions and coordination. It should also have regard to the implementation in practice of the national and international principles of legality, proportionality and necessity in the case, the outcome of the incident, all the applicant’s injuries and his conduct during the incident in order to assess and evaluate whether there were irregularities and arbitrariness in the action of the police or an abuse of force. The Court should have relevant evidence and proof in this field. It is true that the national law quoted in the judgment is the old one and that some provisions gave the police wide scope in the use of firearms, such as the use of force to enforce the laws, decrees and decisions of the relevant authorities or to disperse public gatherings or suppress mutinies, but this is not in issue in the instant case. Generally speaking, this fact does not mean that the police can use force without control. This is particularly true in this case, where there is no evidence justifying such use of force. On the other hand, that law was amended by the provisions authorising the use of 1. Judge Strážnická does not share the conclusions in the opinion as regards Article 13 of the Convention since she voted with the majority on that issue.