40 order authorizing the measure to the Prosecutor General’s Office, who may supervise the procedure. The Court observes that, to the contrary, the Prosecutor General’s Office was not advised of the interception orders and only received the file of the monitoring petition on May 30, 2000; that is, more than a year after the interception orders were issued and eleven months after the telephone interventions had ceased. 143. Additionally, Article 6, paragraph 1, of the said law stipulates that if the procedure makes it possible to record the intercepted communication, it shall be transcribed. As mentioned above, the transcripts of the recorded material were not provided to the case file of the monitoring petition (supra para. 97). Consequently, in the instant case, the provisions of Article 6 of Law No. 9,296/96 were not complied with. Destruction of the recorded tapes – Article 9 of Law No. 9,296/96140 144. As established in Article 9 of Law No. 9,296/96, any recording that is not of interest as evidence in the investigation or in the criminal proceedings shall be destroyed following a judicial decision, at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office or the interested party. 145. Regarding the argument concerning the judiciary’s refusal to destroy the tapes obtained by the illegal monitoring, the Court notes that the destruction of the tapes does not form part of the matters being examined in this case (supra paras. 37 and 38 and infra para. 199) and that they were destroyed on November 23, 2002, by order of Judge Khater, at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office in the monitoring petition case file. Consequently, the Court will not examine this argument. * * * 146. The Court concludes that the telephone conversation interceptions and recordings that are the object of this case did not comply with Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of Law No. 9,296/96 and, therefore, were not based on the law. Thus, since they did not comply with the requirement of legality, it is unnecessary to examine the purpose and necessity of the interception. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to privacy established in Article 11 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation embodied in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Arlei José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral and Celso Aghinoni. 2(ii) Privacy, conversations honor and reputation, and dissemination of the telephone 147. The Commission claimed that the recordings in question were in the hands of State organs and were safeguarded by judicial confidentiality. The organs responsible for ensuring this confidentiality failed to comply with their legal obligation, because the information reached the press and was published by different media, affecting the privacy and dignity of the victims. The recordings were not public information, so that their dissemination without the authorization of the authors was illegal. In addition to dissemination by the media, the contents of the conversations were again disseminated out of context and the activities of members of COANA and ADECON discredited during the press conference offered by the former Secretary of Security. The Commission considered that, pursuant to Article 10 of Law No. 9,296/96, the former Secretary of Security was 140 Law No. 9,296 of July 24, 1996, supra note 128, folio 55. Article 9. The recording that is not required as evidence shall be destroyed following a judicial ruling during the investigation or the pre-trial criminal investigation, or subsequently at the request of the Office of the Prosecutor General or the interested party.