20 allegedly delivered such recording to a police officer.60 The Court notes that in such documents and in the sworn statements rendered in different proceedings it was confirmed that the recording had been made privately. Such documents were not challenged, nor their authenticity questioned before this Court. 65. Additionally, the Commission and the representatives pointed out that in her statement in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Tristán Donoso, Inspector Hurtado declared that she had not delivered the tape containing the recording at issue to Prosecutor Prado, thus contradicting the contents of the report dated July 19, 1996 drawn by Clerk Miranda and of official letter No. 2414 of July 10, 1996 issued by Prosecutor Prado.61 Notwithstanding, in the same proceedings and following such statement, the above-mentioned police officer rendered three further statements, one of them before a notary public,62 another one before the Fiscalía Auxiliar de la República de Panamá [Office of the Auxiliary Prosecutor of the Republic of Panamá]63 and one more at the hearing of the case,64 in which she stated that Mr. Adel Zayed had given her the tape; that she gave it to Prosecutor Prado as at that time an investigation was being conducted into a possible extortion of the Zayed family, and that in her statement of April 29, 1999 she had stated otherwise “because [she] was forced to do therefore [by her superiors] and she did not want to lose [her] job.65 In fact, the Court notes the contradiction among the aforementioned statements regarding the delivery of the recording by Inspector Hurtado to Prosecutor Prado. Notwithstanding, in her three subsequent testimonies the officer was consistent in pointing out the private origin of the tape. 66. As it has been indicated before, the assessment of the evidence brought before the Court is governed by the principle of sound criticism.66 The Court’s certainty about a specific fact and its verification is not restricted to one or more evidentiary items established in the Convention or its Rules, nor to evidentiary assessment criteria which define when a fact is deemed to be certain or not. On the basis of the foregoing considerations and of the evidence on the record, the Court finds that it has not been proven that the tape containing the telephone conversation of Mr. Tristán Donoso was recorded by State agents. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine the responsibility of the State for the violation of the right to privacy of 60 Cf. Official Letter No. 1289-99 dated April 7, 1999, from Prosecutor Prado (Case File of Appendixes to the Reply to the Application, Book VIII, Appendix B-2, folio 4399). 61 Cf. Sworn Statement rendered by Inspector Hurtado on April 29, 1999 before the Fiscalía Cuarta del Primer Circuito Judicial de Panamá [Panamá First Court Circuit Public Attorney Number Four] (Case File of Appendixes to the Application, Book I, Appendix 33, folios 1659 and 1660). 62 Cf. Sworn Statement rendered by Inspector Hurtado on May 30, 2000 before a Notary Public (Case File of Appendixes to the Reply to the Application, Book IX, Appendix B-2, Volume 1, folios 4800 and 4801). 63 Cf. Sworn Statement rendered by Inspector Hurtado on June 6, 2000 before the Fiscalía Auxiliar de la República [Office of the Auxiliary Prosecutor of the Republic of Panamá] (Case File of Appendixes to the Application, Book II, Appendix 38, folio 1754). 64 Cf. Minutes of Hearing No. 32, held on July 11, 2002; statement by Inspector Hurtado, supra note 30, folio 2618. 65 Sworn Statement rendered by Inspector Hurtado on June 6, 2000, supra note 63, folio 1758. 66 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 52; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 64; and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 49.