8 on the inhibiting effect criminal prosecutions and convictions for defamation have on those reporting or accusing public officials on account of their behavior; and 8) Olmedo Sanjur. A lawyer, a former Procurador de la Administración [Solicitor for the Administration], and an expert witness offered by the State. He reported, among other matters, on: a) the respective ranks given by the Constitution to the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] and to the Procurador de la Administración [Solicitor for the Administration]; b) the competent jurisdiction the Procurador de la Administración [Solicitor for the Administration] has to determine the criminal cases brought against the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General]; c) the independence of the Procurador de la Administración [Solicitor for the Administration], and d) the independence and the impartiality of criminal Courts in Panamá. 21. Concerning the evidence rendered at the public hearing, the Court heard statements by the following persons: 1) Santander Tristán Donoso. Alleged victim and a witness offered by the Commission and the representatives. He testified, among other matters, about: (a) the alleged wiretapping, recording and disclosure of a telephone conversation he held with a third party and the lack of an adequate investigation into such events; b) the Court prosecution against him; and c) the alleged consequences his criminal prosecution and his criminal conviction by the Panamanian justice would have had on his private life and on his professional activities. 2) Guido Alejandro Rodríguez Lugari. A former Adjunto del Defensor del Pueblo de la República de Panamá [Panamá Republic Deputy Ombudsman], in charge of freedom of expression in such body; an expert witness offered by the Commission and the representatives. He reported, among other matters, on: a) how freedom of expression stands in Panamá; b) the legal rules governing such right; and c) the practice allegedly existing in Panamá of public officials accusing of defamation those criticizing the way they conduct State business; and 3) Javier Chérigo. A lawyer, a former Subdirector General de la Policía Técnica Judicial [Assistant Director General of the Judicial Technical Police] and an expert witness offered by the State. He reported, among other matters, on: a) the rules governing wiretapping and recording telephone conversations and the practice thereof in Panamá at the time of the events, its formal and operational aspects; b) the statutory code applicable to criminal investigations in cases of illegal wiretapping and recording of telephone conversations; and c) the legal standing of freedom of expression en Panamá; specifically, the alleged need to continue defining its violation as a crime instead of the alternative of considering it a mere tort. B. Assessment of evidence