47 were decisions are subject to appeal, it affords them the possibility of challenging the Order and obtaining a new examination of the issues by higher Courts. Based on all of the foregoing, the duty to give the grounds for Court decisions constitutes one of the “due guarantees” enshrined in Article 8(1) of the Convention in order to safeguard the right to the due process of the law.137 154. The Court has found that the duty to provide the grounds for Court decisions does not entail a duty to offer a thorough answer to every allegation made by the parties, but it constitutes a duty that may vary depending on the nature of the decision and that should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to assess compliance with such guarantee.138 155. The representatives alleged that the decision of the Corte Suprema de Justicia [Supreme Court of Justice] of December 3, 1999, did not include any assessment of the matter regarding disclosure of the contents of the private telephone conversation. In this sense, the Court realizes that the criminal complaint refers to two different aspects: a) the recording of the telephone conversation held by Messrs. Tristán Donoso and Adel Zayed; and b) the disclosure of the content of such recording before members of the Junta Directiva del Colegio Nacional de Abogados de Panamá [Panamá National Bar Association Governing Board] and the Archbishop of Panamá. In the criminal complaint of March 26, 1999, Mr. Tristán Donoso stated that in July 1996, “the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General], Licentiate JOSÉ ANTONIO SOSSA, recor[d]ed one of [his] telephone conversations with Mr. ADEL ZAYED. Such recording […] was presented to members of the Junta Directiva del Colegio Nacional de Abogados de Panamá [Panamá National Bar Association Governing Board] […] The same cassette and its transcript was sent on July 16, 1996, to Monsignor José Dimas Cedeño, Bishop of Panamá.” Similarly, the decision of the Corte Suprema de Justicia [Supreme Court of Justice] establishes that Mr. Tristán Donoso based his accusation on “the alleged perpetration of the offenses of Abusing Authority and of Infringing the Duties of a Public Official [under] Chapter IV, Title IX in Book II of the Penal Code” and on the fact that “he was a victim of telephone spying by the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General], JOSÉ ANTONIO SOSSA, who tape recorded a telephone conversation he was holding with Mr. ADEL ZAYED […] and that such conversation had been presented to members of the Colegio Nacional de Abogados de Panamá [Panamá National Bar Association].139 156. As to the recording, the Supreme Court held that “despite the exhaustive investigation carried out, the allegations made by attorney MR. TRISTÁN DONOSO could not be proven, in the sense that the recording of the telephone conversation with Adel [Z]ayed was obtained through illegal means by Attorney General JOSÉ ANTONIO SOSSA, in violation of the right to privacy of the two citizens involved.”140 137 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) supra note 134, para. 78. 138 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) supra note 134, para. 90. 139 Judgment by the Corte Suprema de Justicia de Panamá [Supreme Court of Justice of Panamá] of December 3, 1999, supra note 46, folio 1736. 140 Judgment by the Corte Suprema de Justicia de Panamá [Supreme Court of Justice of Panamá] of December 3, 1999, supra note 46, folio 1749.