specially constituted administrative councils, this could raise questions about independence that might lead, in themselves, to a finding of violation of the right to life.273 Investigations must be wide ranging and rigorous. For example, violations of the right to life have not been adequately investigated where authorities have failed to: • • • • • ascertain whether there were eye witnesses; question suspects at a sufficiently early stage of the inquiry; search for corroborating evidence; take into account obvious evidence; carry out a proper autopsy, including, for example, tests for gunpowder traces. Absolute necessity and the permitted exceptions to the right to life The exceptions to the right to life must be construed narrowly.274 They are the internationally recognized circumstances where it may be lawful to use lethal force (defence of persons, arrest, preventing escape or quelling a riot or insurrection). Even then, the amount of force used must be no more than absolutely necessary to achieve the required end. “Absolutely necessary” provides for a stricter test than that applied when determining whether a state interference is “necessary in a democratic society.” The use of force must be a strictly proportionate response. “In defence of any person from unlawful violence” Self-defence, or the defence of any person from unlawful violence, can provide a legitimate defence for the taking of life. The state will be required to supply sufficient evidence that agents or other persons came (or would have come) under armed attack at the scene of an incident. Although self defence can be a lawful justification for the use of fatal force, it has to be the option of last resort. Therefore, if earlier opportunities to arrest suspects are not taken and the result is that security forces then have to rely upon the use of lethal force, there may have been a violation of the right to life.275 Self defence should not be invoked to sanction a shoot-to-kill policy. “In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained” The European Court has emphasized the need for proper warnings to be given before potentially lethal force is used.276 Suspects must be given all opportunities to surrender. The use of force must be the option of last resort. At the same time, there needs to be clear policy 273 Op. cit., note 252, ECtHR, Güleç v. Turkey, paras. 77-82. 274 Article 2(2) ECHR. 275 In McCann the UK government’s assertion that they were defending the general public from a terrorist threat was not held to be within the meaning of absolute necessity because the suspected terrorists had been allowed to enter Gibraltar in the first instance, op. cit., note 252, ECtHR, McCann and Others v. UK, para. 213. 276 “By definition, warning shots are fired into the air, with the gun almost vertical, so as to ensure that the suspect is not hit […] That was all the more essential in the instant case as visibility was very poor. It is accordingly difficult to imagine that a genuine warning shot could have struck the victim in the neck. In this context, it should also be noted that according to one of the members of the security forces, the men had taken up position fifty metres apart from each other but were not linked by radio; that must necessarily have made it difficult to transmit orders and to control the operations […] The Court consequently considers that, even supposing that Musa Oğur was killed by a bullet fired as a warning, the firing of that shot was badly executed, to the point of constituting gross negligence, whether the victim was running away or not”, ECtHR, Oğur v. Turkey, Application no. 21594/93, 20 May 1999, para. 83. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 107