56 judgment of the Second Criminal Court of the Comarca of Curitiba. Nevertheless, on appeal, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná decided to annul the conviction and acquit him (supra para. 106), based on the argument that “the [former Secretary of Security] did not violate the judicial confidentiality of the information obtained by the telephone interception, because the judicial confidentiality of information that had already been broadcast the previous day on a widely-watched news program on a television network, could not be violated.”181 204. The Court has indicated that, without judicial authorization, the former Secretary of Security revealed the audio version of the recordings to other people and distributed printed fragments of the conversations, and he may also have disseminated new portions of the recordings (supra paras. 95 and 156). Despite the differences between the testimony of the former Secretary of Security and that of the three journalists summoned to give testimony about what happed during the press conference, particularly with regard to the distribution of transcripts of parts of some of the intercepted conversations and the audio reproduction of the recordings during the said event, no other evidence was sought that might have clarified the facts. In this regard, the respective television channels were not asked to provide the tapes with the news items broadcast on the Journal Nacional on June 7 and 8, 1999, or the recording of the said press conference. Hence, the Court considers that the Second Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná concluded that the former Secretary of Security did not disseminate new extracts of the telephone conversations without having this evidence or comparing the material involved in the two disseminations.182 205. The Court also observes that the State did not take other investigative measures that could have determined who was responsible for the first dissemination of the recorded material; namely the delivery of the tapes to the television channel. Despite the findings in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná in relation to the evidence about who was the author of the delivery of the recorded tapes to the press, the principal suspect being a member of the Military Police, no measures were taken to clarify these facts and, if applicable, punish those responsible, despite the provisions of Article 10 of Law No. 9,296/96 and the fact that the offense of the breach of judicial confidentiality should have been investigated by the State ex officio. 206. Based on the above, the Court indicates that the absence of a response by the State is a determining element when assessing whether non-compliance with Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention exists, because it is directly related to the principle of effectiveness that must characterize the implementation of such investigations.183 In the instant case, the State authorities did not act with due diligence or in accordance with the provisions of the said Articles concerning the obligation to conduct an investigation (infra para. 214). 3) Administrative procedure 207. On November 17, 1999, an administrative proceeding was filed against Judge Khater which culminated in the decision of September 28, 2001, by the Corregedoria-Geral da 181 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. 182 Cf. Case file of Criminal Appeal No. 153.894-1 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, tomes II to IV, attachment 18, Volumes 1 to 3, folios 2289 to 2928), and decision of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná of October 14, 2004, supra note 27, folios 109 to 114. 183 Cf. García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 115; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 170, para. 157, and Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 170, para. 95.