44 as stated by the Court at various instances, this duty must be undertaken by the State as its own legal obligation and not as a mere formality condemned in advance to be fruitless,124 or as a superficial administration of private interests, which depends upon the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or upon the production of evidence by private parties.125 147. The Court finds that in the investigation carried out by the Procuraduría de la Administración [Office of the Solicitor for the Administration], the evidence and attached items submitted with the criminal complaint filed by Mr. Tristán Donoso and with the one submitted by the Defensor del Pueblo de Panamá [Panamá Ombudsman], 126included, among other elements: a) the magnetophonic tape and the transcription of the aforementioned telephone recording; b) the copy of the letter sent by Mr. Tristán Donoso to the former Attorney General on July 21, 1996; c) the request by the reporting party that the testimonies, among others, of Ms. Edna Ramos and Ms. Dalma de Duque, of Archbishop José Dimas Cedeño, of Mr. Adel Zayed, of Licentiate Gerardo Solís be heard; d) the sworn statements by Licentiate Luis Banqué, of Luis Banqué, of Licentiate Jorge Vélez, of Licentiate Armando Abrego and of Monsignor Carlos Ariz; e) the copy of the note dated July 16, 1996, whereby the Jefa de Prensa y Divulgación del Ministerio Público [Prosecuting Office Press and Social Communications Department Chief], Dalma del Duque, forwarded to Archbishop José Dimas Cedeño a transcript of the recording of the telephone conversation; f) note D.D.P. – R.P.-No. 177/99, wherein it is pointed out that the Ombudsman passed Order No. 545-99 of March 30, 1999, whereby an ex officio investigation was commenced to establish whether the National Police wiretapped telephone conversations; and g) the copy bearing the seal of the Corregiduría [Local Police Authority] of Communication DPG-907-96 of July 12, 1996, whereby the former Attorney General requested the Director of the Instituto Nacional de Telecomunicaciones [National Telecommunications Institute] then in office to deploy his good offices to wiretap six telephones lines. 148. In its turn, the Procuraduría de la Administración [Office of the Solicitor for the Administration] gathered the following items of evidence: a) note DG-01-053-99 of the Director General of the Policía Técnica Judicial [Judicial Technical Police] Alejandro Moncada, whereby he reported he received no request from the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] to neither to record the telephone conversations of Mr. Tristán Donoso, nor to implement surveillance measures regarding the private activities of the reporting party, and that it had no documentation or information related to the recordings that were the subject matter 124 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 9, para. 177; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 66, para. 144, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 100. 125 Cf. Case of Velázquez-Rodríguez, supra note 9, para. 177; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 66, para. 145; and Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 6, para. 84. 126 Cf. Criminal Report filed on March 26, 1999 by Mr. Tristán Donoso against the former Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General, supra note 39, folios 1620 to 1624; Extension of the criminal report, dated April 5, 1999, supra note 40, folios 1625 to 1627; Official Letter D.P.P.-R.P. No. 151/99 dated March 26, 1999 of the Defensoría del Pueblo de la República de Panamá [Panamá Ombudsman], supra note 80, 1606 and 1607; Extension of the criminal report, dated April 7, 1999, supra note 41, folios 3209 and 3210, and Official Letter D.D.P-R.P. No. 177/99 dated April 15, 1999 of the Defensoría del Pueblo de la República de Panamá [Panamá Ombudsman], supra note 83, folios 1636 to 1638.