The internal attitude of the person towards the use of lethal force

The Court has never held that a person who intended to act in self-defence must have believed in good faith that the use of force was necessary. Instead, the Court has found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on the ground that the belief was not considered reasonable. In cases concerning possible necessary defence, the Court has found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention only in cases where it refused to accept that the belief was sincere, or in cases where the degree of force used was manifestly disproportionate.

• Armani Da Silva v. the UK [GC], Para 247;
• Akhmadov and Others v. Russia, Para 101;
• Suleymanova v. Russia, Para 85

When applying the test established in McCann and Others v. the UK [GC], the main question is whether the person had a genuine and sincere belief that the use of force was necessary. In deciding this question, the Court must consider whether the belief was subjectively reasonable, whether it took into account all the circumstances relevant at the time. If the belief was not subjectively reasonable (i.e. it was not based on subjective grounds sufficient to justify it), it is unlikely that the Court will find that it was honest and sincerely held.

• Armani Da Silva v. the UK [GC], Para 248

The soldiers, in light of the information provided to them, genuinely believed that it was necessary to open fire on the suspects in order to prevent them from detonating an explosive device and thus prevent an attack on life. The actions taken by the soldiers in accordance with the orders of their command were absolutely necessary in order to preserve innocent lives.

• McCann and Others v. the UK, Para 200

Taking into account the clearly violent nature of the attack on the jeep, the Court considers that the police officer acted on the basis of a deep-seated inner conviction that his life and physical integrity, as well as those of his colleagues, were in danger as a result of the unlawful attack against him. Accordingly, the police officer was entitled to use appropriate means to protect himself and the other persons in the jeep.

• Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], Para 189