25 Church authorities just because a “Monsignor” is mentioned therein is not the procedure provided to prevent the alleged criminal conducts. Likewise, neither is the disclosure of the recording to certain authorities of the Colegio Nacional de Abogados [National Bar Association] the procedure established by Panamanian legislation in case of a possible breach of the lawyer’s ethics code. In the instant case, the former Attorney General should have effected a report to the Tribunal de Honor del Colegio Nacional de Abogados [National Bar Association Ethics Review Board], which should have examined whether the facts reported amounted to a case of unethical conduct among those set forth in the Código de Ética y Responsabilidad Profesional del Abogado [Lawyers' Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility]. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the way in which the telephone conversation was disseminated in the instant case lacked statutory grounds. 82. Finally, this Tribunal finds that the comments by the former Attorney General when effecting the aforementioned disclosure (supra paras. 43 and 44) may be deemed to have affected honor and reputation in a manner incompatible with the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Tristán Donoso, inasmuch as qualifying the statements contained in the cassette as “a defamation plan,” or as a “conspiracy against the head of the Ministerio Público [Office of the Public Attorney]” uttered by the highest authority of the body responsible for prosecuting crimes before two audiences which are relevant for the life of the alleged victim, implied participation by the latter in an illegal activity, with the resulting impairment of his honor and reputation. The opinion that the authorities of the Catholic Church and of the Colegio de Abogados [Bar Association] had about the worthiness of, and the action taken by, the alleged victim necessarily affected his honor and reputation (supra para. 34). 83. So, the Court considers that disseminating the private conversation before Catholic Church authorities and some of the persons responsible for running the Colegio Nacional de Abogados [National Bar Association] and the comments made by the former Attorney General on such occasions, violated the rights to a private life and to honor and reputation of Mr. Tristán Donoso, recognized in Articles 11(1) and 11(2) of the American Convention, in connection with the obligation to respect rights enshrined in Article 1(1) thereof. 2. iii) The duty to guarantee a private life through the criminal proceedings 84. The Commission alleged that, “the fact [that] Prosecutor’s Opinion No. 472 was drawn up by agents under the hierarchical authority of the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] [in the criminal investigation instituted against him] is a situation which in itself affected the impartiality of the officials in charge of conducting such investigation.” In the opinion of the Commission, such fact, together with the alleged omissions in the above-mentioned investigation, resulted in the failure to identify and punish those responsible for the above mentioned wiretapping and recording. So, by not ensuring the right to a private life and to honor, as set forth in Article 11(2) of the Convention, the State failed to meet the general duty provided in Article 1(1) thereof. 85. In turn, the State alleged that the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] and the Procurador de la Administración [Procurador de la Administración [Solicitor for the Administration]] are public officials having the same hierarchy and that “[b]oth have clearly distinct powers of their own and neither is in a subordinate position with regard to the other.”