MAKARATZIS v. GREECE JUDGMENT – PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA JOINED BY JUDGE STRÁŽNICKÁ 43 firearms only when absolutely necessary and when all less extreme methods have been exhausted. Furthermore, all the relevant international principles in the international documents quoted in the judgment have been recognised by the Greek authorities. Criminal proceedings for causing serious bodily harm and for the unauthorised use of weapons were instituted against seven police officers, who were later acquitted, on the basis of the result of an administrative investigation which was carried out in respect of twenty-nine police officers, and it is difficult for me to accept that it would be possible for a police officer to use firearms without being liable for the consequences. I must say that I do not have a clear picture of the incident because there is insufficient factual evidence owing to the inadequate, incomplete and ineffective investigation and information concerning police practice regarding the use of firearms. It is generally for the national authority to establish the facts. The Court made efforts to do this by itself but, in my opinion, unfortunately did so unsuccessfully in some respects. In these circumstances, I consider that it is impossible to make a proper evaluation and conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a violation of Article 2 in substance as a result of the incident. I think that in such a situation it is not necessary to consider the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of the Convention regarding the alleged lack of protection by national law of the right to life. On the other hand, I think that there are elements which enable an assessment to be made under Article 3 of the Convention of the police officers’ conduct during the incident. The Court has reiterated in Tekin v. Turkey, ([GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII) and İlhan v. Turkey (judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV) that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity and that this assessment depends on all the circumstances of the case, namely the duration of the treatment, its physical or moral effects and the state of health of the victim. In the instant case, there are some indisputable circumstances. The applicant had driven through a red traffic light and was chased by thirtythree police officers in cars and on motorcycles, shooting from guns, revolvers and submachine guns, who used force to stop and arrest him. There was no intention or order given to kill him, and no one contests that the applicant felt fear and panic. The police lost him once during the chase. The applicant stopped at the entrance of a petrol station of his own free will, did not offer any resistance and did not get out of the car. The shots were numerous and the applicant was seriously injured. He underwent three operations, his health deteriorated considerably after the incident and he is now severely disabled. All the points that I have mentioned above provide elements that enable an assessment to be made of the level of severity, that is, the duration of the