21 the alleged victim as enshrined in Article 11(2) of the Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of such treaty, regarding the alleged wiretapping and recording of the aforementioned telephone conversation. 67. Finally, the Court will not examine the argument that such recording was the result of the alleged deficiencies of the legal system which regulated the wiretapping of telephone conversations by the State of Panamá, and that therefore the State would have failed to comply with the general duty established in Article 2 of the Convention, for such argument necessarily assumes the State to be responsible for such wiretapping and recording, something which has not been proven in the instant case. 2. ii) Privacy and disclosure of the contents of the telephone conversation 68. The Commission alleged that: a) “the telephone conversation […] was a private conversation held […] in the framework of the practice of the alleged victim’s profession as a lawyer […] and, so, its contents were not intended to be disclosed. Neither Mr. Tristán Donoso nor Mr. Adel [Z]ayed had [consented] to making the contents of […] such telephone communication public;” b) “even if the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] had not been involved in the wiretapping and recording of the telephone conversation in his capacity as a public official it was his duty to refrain from disclosing its contents; and c) “the moment a public official […] disclosed the contents of a telephone conversation which had been illegally wiretapped and tape recorded, the State violated the right to privacy provided in Article 11(2) of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Tristán Donoso and failed to fulfill its duty to respect the rights and liberties enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention.” 69. The representatives argued that: a) upon recording a telephone conversation and disclosing its contents the State interfered with the private life of Tristán Donoso; b) no regulations existed which empowered the former Attorney General to disclose private information. Moreover, Article 337 of the Penal Code enacted punishments for the disclosure of information by public officials who, in their capacity as such, were supposed to keep it secret and Article 24 of Law No. 23 set forth the duty of confidentiality regarding the information legally obtained in the course of formal investigation proceedings. Much less could “[…] a conversation which had been illegally obtained, which was not part of any ongoing investigation proceedings and which, furthermore, was a dialogue between a lawyer and his client” be disclosed; c) the former Attorney General did not start an investigation into the alleged “preparatory acts leading to a wrongdoing or to an illegal action,” nor did he report, being aware of the identity of the persons who held the conversation, the alleged unethical conduct to the Colegio Nacional de Abogados [National Bar Association]; instead he disclosed the contents of the conversation to the authorities of the Catholic Church and of the aforementioned Bar Association; and d) the Panamanian legislation was not clear, among other aspects, as to how the private information to which public authorities may have access was to be handled; the period of time during which the information might have been kept or stored and the authorized uses of the information obtained. They indicated that “[t]his has allowed the State to keep the contents of the conversation […] even today, ten years after it took place.” 70. Furthermore, the representatives added that the statements of the former Attorney General upon disclosing the contents of the telephone conversation