18 GIULIANI AND GAGGIO v. ITALY JUDGMENT (b) that evidence be heard from the chief of police, Mr De Gennaro, and from carabiniere Zappia, to establish what instructions had been given regarding the wearing of weapons on the thigh; (c) that the person who had thrown the stone which allegedly deflected the bullet be identified and traced; (d) that further evidence be heard from the demonstrators who had come forward; (e) that evidence be heard from the carabiniere V.M., who had reported the practice of cutting the tips of bullets (see paragraph 63 above); (f) that forensic tests be carried out on the spent cartridges and on the weapons of all the police and carabinieri on Piazza Alimonda at the time of the events. 3. The hearing before the investigating judge 80. The hearing before the investigating judge took place on 17 April 2003. The applicants maintained their argument that the fatal bullet had not been deflected but had struck the victim directly. However, they conceded that there was no evidence that M.P. had altered the bullet to increase its impact; that was simply one theory. 81. The representative of the public prosecutor's office said he had the impression that “certain points which [he had] believed to be the subject of agreement were in fact not; on the contrary, there were divergences of opinion”. He pointed out that the applicants' expert, Mr Gentile, had been in agreement as to the fact that the bullet had been damaged before striking Carlo Giuliani. Furthermore, Mr Gentile had acknowledged that one of the possible causes of the damage was a collision with some object or an intrinsic defect in the bullet, and that the second cause was less likely than the first. E. The decision of the investigating judge 82. By an order lodged with the registry on 5 May 2003, the Genoa investigating judge granted the public prosecutor's request to discontinue the case1. 1. Establishment of the facts 83. The investigating judge referred to an anonymous account of the events posted by a French person on an anarchist website (www.anarchy99.net), which she considered to be credible given that it concurred with the audiovisual material and with the witness statements. The account in question described the situation on Piazza Alimonda and a Several extracts from the investigating judge’s order are cited extensively in paragraphs 94-116 of the Chamber judgment. 1