19 63. Among the elements that point to the responsibility of the State, the Court notes that at the public hearing the alleged victim declared that he had neither tape recorded nor consented to anyone recording his telephone conversation and that, due to various reasons, he had held the former Attorney General to be responsible for such recording, wherefore he had lodged a criminal complaint against him.54 The Court has already rejected such imputation (supra para. 61). Furthermore, in the statement he rendered before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit, Walid Zayed also rejected the argument that the recording had been made by his father or the alleged victim and at the same time stated that “he did not have the slightest doubt that the telephone recording had been made by some agency to which the Attorney General […] had access.”55 However, such imputation was made on circumstantial grounds, and there are no other elements to back them before the Court. Finally, Mr. Adel Zayed, in his statement regarding the complaint lodged against the former Attorney General, declared that he only delivered to a police agent a single cassette and not the tape containing the recording of his conversation with the alleged victim. He stated that he had never “delivered nor tape recorded or consented to any recording of [his] private telephone conversations.”56 In such circumstances, the Court finds that such statements do not amount to sufficient evidence to prove before the Court the responsibility of the State for recording the telephone conversation and convince it thereof. 64. Besides, there is evidence on the record of the case filed with the Court, which indicates that such recording might have been made privately. This results, among other elements, from the following public documents and statements: a) Official Letter No. 2414 of July 10, 1996, through which Prosecutor Prado forwarded, among other items, a cassette “containing tape recorded telephone conversations allegedly made from the residence of the [Z]ayed family, without authorization of the Ministerio Público [Office of the Public Attorneys], as it was made privately;”57 b) Report dated July 19, 1996, issued by the Clerk Álvaro Miranda of the Fiscalía Tercera del Circuito de Colón [Office of the Colón Circuit Prosecutor Number Three] (hereinafter “Clerk Miranda”) and addressed to Prosecutor Prado, in which, among other considerations, it was stated that the recording had been made privately;58 c) Sworn Statement dated March 30, 1999, rendered by Clerk Miranda in the criminal proceedings started by the former Attorney General against Mr. Tristán Donoso, confirming that the recording had been made privately;59 and d) Official Letter No. 1289-99 dated April 7, 1999 in which Prosecutor Prado declared that Mr. Zayed had 54 Criminal complaint lodged on March 26, 1999 by Mr. Tristán Donoso against the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] (supra note 39, folio 1620). 55 Cf. Statement rendered before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit by Mr. Walid Zayed, supra note 16, folio 533. 56 Cf. Sworn Statement rendered by Mr. Adel Zayed before the Procuraduría de la Administración [Office of the Solicitor for the Administration] on May 5, 1999 (Case File of Appendixes to the Application, Book I, Appendix 2, folio 1447). 57 Official Letter No. 2414 from Prosecutor Prado, dated July 10, 1996, supra note 24, folio 1519. 58 Cf. Report of July 19, 1996 of Clerk Miranda (Case File of Appendixes to the Application, Book I, Appendix 11, folio 1527). 59 Cf. Sworn Statement rendered by Clerk Miranda on March 30, 1999 before the Office of the Deputy Prosecutor of the Republic (Case File of Appendixes to the Reply to the Application, Book V, folio 3769).