42 material distributed to third parties, in this case the people who decided to publish it and who prepared the news item for the television channel. 151. As indicated above (supra para. 127), in cases such as this one, the State’s defense cannot be based on the impossibility of the complainant to provide evidence to the case file when it is the State who controls the means of clarifying the facts that occurred. Despite the absence of an investigation into the facts relating to this dissemination, the Court observes that, in his report on the interceptions presented to the Loanda Court, Major Neves mentions that a military official “illegally handed over video and audio tapes that were probative material to the press and/or other individuals.”142 Moreover, the statements of Colonel Kretschmer and the former Secretary of Security during the criminal action against the latter agree that the tapes were in the custody of the Military Police and that it was said that they had been handed over to the press by the official mentioned by Major Neves in his report.143 152. Despite the fact that it does not have all the elements to verify which conversations were disseminated on this first occasion or who the speakers were, owing to the said absence of an investigation, the Court notes that, as a result of this monitoring petition, some of the conversations of the victims were intercepted and were not published, together with those that were broadcast on the news. Consequently, the Court considers it highly probable and reasonable to assume that the audio material handed over to the television network contained the recording of the victims’ telephone conversations.144 Accordingly, their private life was interfered with. 153. With regard to the dissemination of the telephone conversations by the former Secretary of Security, the decision issued in the criminal action indicated that “the information obtained by the telephone interception […] was not disseminated at the press conference organized by [the said agent], who considered it his duty to clarify the facts that had been disseminated previously.” Thus, the Court of Justice concluded that the former Secretary of Security “did not betray the confidentiality of the information obtained through the telephone interception, because […] it had already been disseminated by a television network the previous day.”145 The Court notes that there are no elements in the file of the criminal action identifying the content of the report broadcast on the Jornal Nacional on June 7, 1999. During that action it was merely proved that the television network broadcast some extracts from the recorded conversations, and neither the extracts nor the speakers were identified during the criminal action or before the inter-American system. In view of these omissions, the Court is unable to compare the information broadcast by the news program and that disseminated by the former Secretary of Security during the press conference. 142 Cf. Record of the delivery of the 123 tapes, supra note 83, folio 2143. Similarly, testimony of Major Neves of November 5, 2002, within the framework of criminal action No. 2001.2125-5 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 18, tome IV, folio 2742). 143 Cf. Testimony of the former Secretary of Security of October 18, 1999, within the framework of criminal action No. 82.516-5 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 18, tome II, folios 2447 and 2448); testimony of the former Secretary of Security of August 6, 2001, within the framework of criminal action No. 2001.2125-5 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 18, tome IV, folio 2730); and testimony of Colonel Kretschmer of November 5, 2002, within the framework of criminal action No. 2001.2125-5 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 18, tome IV, folio 2743). 144 Records of the recorded tapes, supra note 85, folio 2147; videos of two news items broadcast on the national news programs on June 8 and 9, 1999, supra note 81, and the Folha do Paraná newspaper published on June 20, 1999, Article entitled “Conversas incluem propostas de pressão” (file of attachments to the brief with pleadings and motions, attachment 10, folio 2029). 145 Cf. Decision of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná of October 14, 2004, supra note 27, folio 114.