24 TSALIKIDIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE JUDGMENT that the mark was obliquely directed. The fact that rope mark had been circular − that is to say encircling the neck completely − had not precluded its also being obliquely directed. Moreover, coroner G.D.L. had attributed Mr Tsalikidis’ death to pulmonary oedema and coroner F.K. to cardiac arrest; however, these two statements were not contradictory as “cardiac arrest” meant loss of heart function and was synonymous with death. In addition, these alleged contradictions should have been brought up by the applicants following the end of the initial investigation. 81. By way of corroboration of their arguments, the Government presented a certificate dated 17 May 2016 issued by Ch.S, one of the three coroners who had drawn up reports following the exhumation, and who was also the Director of the Laboratory of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology in the School of Medicine of Athens National University. Dr Ch.S. stated that in her view both the initial and supplementary investigations had been complete and endorsed the Government’s arguments as regards the cause of death, the hyoid bone, the reports drawn up by the applicants’ technical experts, and the rope mark on the deceased’s neck. 82. In conclusion, the Government maintained that the domestic authorities had conducted a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation, as proven by the extensive collected evidence. The applicants’ involvement in the investigation had been evident and the authorities − which had responded immediately to the applicants’ request for exhumation − had reached the decision to archive the file after assessing all the evidence in their possession. 3. The Court’s assessment (a) General principles 83. Article 2 of the Convention, which safeguards the right to life, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention and enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe. The Court must subject any allegations of breaches of this provision to the most careful scrutiny (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 93, ECHR 2005-VII). 84. The Court observes at the outset that the applicants did not contend that the authorities of the respondent State had been responsible for the death of their relative; nor did they imply that the authorities knew or ought to have known that he was at risk of physical violence at the hands of third parties and had failed to take appropriate measures to safeguard him against such a risk. The present case should therefore be distinguished from cases involving the alleged use of lethal force either by agents of the State or by private parties with their collusion (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, § 90, 4 May 2001; Anguelova