88 GIULIANI AND GAGGIO v. ITALY JUDGMENT “The Court shall examine the case together with the representatives of the parties and, if need be, undertake an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the High Contracting Parties concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities.” 341. In the applicants' submission, the Government had given false or incomplete replies (for instance, regarding the professional experience of the carabinieri in the jeep and the presence of a riot shield in the vehicle). They had also omitted to give details of some essential circumstances. In particular, they had failed to: – provide details of the command structure of the police and carabinieri extending to the top of the structure; – specify the criteria for selecting officers to be deployed on public-order operations; – produce the documents certifying the professional experience of the carabinieri concerned (fogli matricolari); – submit the orders which police officer Lauro and the officers in charge of the company had received from their superiors; – indicate the identity of the person who had ordered the attack on the Tute Bianche march; – produce transcripts of the relevant radio conversations. 342. The Government observed that their right to defend their case was “sacrosanct” and that, in any case, they had made all the relevant information available to the Court. As to the information concerning the attack on the Tute Bianche march, they submitted that this was unconnected to the events at the centre of the present application. 343. The Chamber was of the view that there had been no violation of Article 38 of the Convention because, although the information provided by the Government did not deal exhaustively with all the points listed above, the incomplete nature of that information had not prevented the Court from examining the case (see paragraphs 269-271 of the Chamber judgment). 344. The Court sees no reason to depart from the approach taken by the Chamber on this point. It therefore concludes that there has been no violation of Article 38 of the Convention in the instant case. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT 1. Holds, by thirteen votes to four, that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive aspect as regards the use of lethal force; 2. Holds, by ten votes to seven, that there has been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive aspect as regards the domestic legislative framework governing the use of lethal force or as regards the