GÜLEÇ JUDGMENT OF 27 JULY 1998 32 The level of force used to restore public safety could not therefore be criticised. Faced with a serious situation obliging them to intervene to put a stop to acts of violence, the gendarmes had used the means at their disposal in such a way as to try to avoid loss of life. (c) The Commission 68. After conducting an investigation on the spot and hearing oral evidence in Strasbourg, the Commission concluded that it had been established that the armoured vehicle had opened fire in the main street, where the demonstration was taking place, either in the air or at the ground, in order to disperse the demonstrators, and that Ahmet Güleç had been hit by a fragment of a bullet fired from that vehicle that had ricocheted off the ground or a wall. However, the Commission did not believe that the machine gun, a combat weapon with a very rapid rate of fire, had been used to kill demonstrators intentionally. It accepted that the form the demonstration had taken was such that it could be described as a riot within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention, but expressed the view that the use of a combat weapon during a demonstration for the purpose of restoring order could not be regarded as proportionate. 2. The Court’s assessment 69. The Court has been given two contradicting versions of the events of 4 March 1991. According to its settled case-law, the establishment and verification of the facts are primarily a matter for the Commission (Articles 28 § 1 and 31 § 1 of the Convention). While the Court is not bound by the Commission’s findings of fact and remains free to make its own appreciation in the light of all the material before it, it is only in exceptional circumstances that it will exercise its own powers in this area (see the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2272, § 38, the Aydın v. Turkey judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1888–89, § 70, the Menteş and Others v. Turkey judgment of 28 November 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, pp. 2709–10, § 66, and the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 321, § 75). 70. The file on the present case has not revealed any reason to cast doubt on the establishment of the facts as set out in the Commission’s report. As the Commission rightly pointed out, the demonstration was far from peaceful, as was evidenced by the damage to moveable and immoveable property in the town and the injuries sustained by some gendarmes. Confronted with acts of violence which were, admittedly, serious, the security forces, who were not present in sufficient strength, called for reinforcements, and at least two armoured vehicles were deployed. Whereas the driver of the Condor, warrant-officer Nazım Ayhan, asserted that he had fired into the air, several witnesses, including some of the leading citizens of