86 GIULIANI AND GAGGIO v. ITALY JUDGMENT referred to paragraphs 5 and 8 of the UN Principles (see paragraph 154 above) and relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 328. The Government maintained that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded, given that the autopsy report had found that the jeep's having driven over Carlo Giuliani's body had not entailed any serious consequences for him, and given the rapid attempts to render assistance to the victim. 329. The Chamber, observing that it could not be inferred from the law-enforcements officers' conduct that they had the intention to inflict pain or suffering on Carlo Giuliani, took the view that it was not necessary to examine the case under Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 260-261 of the Chamber judgment). 330. The Court considers that the facts complained of fall within the scope of the examination it has carried out under Article 2 of the Convention. Accordingly, it sees no reason to depart from the approach taken by the Chamber. IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 331. The applicants complained that they had not had the benefit of an investigation that conformed to the procedural requirements arising out of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. Article 6 § 1, in its relevant parts, provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Article 13 of the Convention provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 332. The applicants submitted that, in view of the inconsistent and incomplete findings of the investigation, the case had required more detailed examination within a framework of genuine adversarial proceedings. 333. The Government called on the Court to find that no separate issue arose under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention or, alternatively, that there had been no breach of those provisions, given the way in which the investigation had been conducted and the fact that the applicants had participated in it. 334. The Chamber considered that, in view of its finding of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect, it was not necessary