43 the punishable act reported, arriving at the conclusion – on the grounds that the wiretapping of the conversation had not been proven – that the [former Attorney General] was not responsible for the disclosure thereof either.” 144. The State alleged that the aforementioned proceedings were carried out with the guarantees due the accused and the accuser; that a decision was rendered within reasonable time by competent, independent and impartial tribunals, and that “the fact that the result of the criminal prosecution does not comply with the expectations of the accuser […] does not entail that no protection was provided [, since such protection] is concerned with the right to a fair trial and not with [the] favorable Order of the claim brought forth. It further considered that the Commission overemphasizes the fact that the Procuraduría de la Administración [Office of the Solicitor for the Administration] failed to insist in obtaining the testimony of Monsignor José Dimas Cedeño, since the points in the set of questions filed in order to be posed to him lacked weight to form the opinion of the Court […] and the key point [in his testimony] had been fully established through other pieces of evidence [and] was never doubted throughout the inquiry”, for which reasons none of his answers would have had any impact on the judgment. It pointed out that, given the dismissal of the charges against the former Attorney General, “criminal legislation in Panamá required a formal report by the injured party […] in order to initiate criminal enquiry proceedings.” Thus, the State held that “Tristán Donoso never appeared at a Personería Municipal [Municipal Judicial Office] – the investigation authority with competent jurisdiction – to formally submit an impersonal criminal complaint therefore that such body could initiate summary investigation proceedings to impose criminal liability for the recording of the conversation of July 8, 1996, even though, being a lawyer, he was fully aware of which was the body having competent jurisdiction.” Lastly, the State alleged that “the [former] Attorney General received [the] tape from the Prosecutor [Prado] in the course of a criminal investigation for the alleged crime of extortion, and that, as he was informed, it had been provided by Mr. Adel [Z]ayed, from which it derives that the [former Attorney General] had no reasons to believe that the recording had been made illegally.” 145. The Court has held that “[i]n order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may have to examine the respective domestic proceeding.123 In this sense, the Court will examine, firstly: i) the allegations regarding the investigations carried out by the State in the course of the criminal prosecution brought against the former Attorney General, and then ii) consider the allegations made regarding the grounds for the judicial decision made by the Corte Suprema de Justicia [Supreme Court of Justice] in the course of such proceedings. 1. i) The investigation carried out by the Procuraduría de la Administración [Office of the Solicitor for the Administration] against the former Attorney General. 146. The duty to investigate involves an obligation to act diligently and not to guarantee a given result since such duty does not necessarily entail that the accused or the investigated individuals should be convicted. The foregoing notwithstanding, 123 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 66, para. 126, and Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 109.