22 constituted a violation of the honor of Mr. Tristán Donoso. They indicated that, at the meeting held by former Attorney General Sossa and some members of the Junta Directiva del Colegio Nacional de Abogados [National Bar Association Governing Board], the former Attorney General stated that such conversation showed that there a plot and a conspiracy against him was afoot for the purpose of creating instability in the Procuraduría General de la Nación [Attorney General’s Office]. From the foregoing “[i]t is evident that the former Attorney General intended to tarnish the good name of Santander Tristán and his professional reputation in the legal community of the country.” Finally, they concluded that “the charges made by former Attorney General Sossa against Santander Tristán were absolutely false and that the plot alleged by the former Attorney General never existed” and that “the statements made by the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] affected Santander Tristán’s honor, for which no […] reparation was ever made.” 71. The State pointed out that: a) “the violation of the right protected by Article 11(2) [of the Convention] can only result from “arbitrary interference” or “abusive interference” in the private life of an individual, his family, his home or his correspondence. Therefore, “[t]he actions of Attorney General […] perfectly lawful, as they do not entail arbitrariness or abuse resulting in the violation of the right to privacy;” b) the former Attorney General obtained the contents of the tape in a lawful manner after Adel Zayed himself delivered it to Inspector Hurtado, who, in turn, delivered it to Prosecutor Prado; c) “Attorney General Sossa decided to inform the Junta Directiva del Colegio Nacional de Abogados [National Bar Association Governing Board] on the defamation plan devised by Mr. Tristán Donoso with Adel Zayed, taking into consideration that the conduct of the lawyer […] could be deemed to be a breach of the ethics standards set for the legal profession;” and d) likewise, as the discussion of the defamation plan devised by Mr. Tristán Donoso involved a “Monsignor,” the former Attorney General considered that it had to be informed to the highest authority of the Catholic Church in Panamá. According to the State “[i]n this case, it is unquestionable that the conversation held between Mr. Tristán Donoso and Adel [Z]ayed on July 8, 1996 was nothing but the preparatory act of a wrongdoing or illegal action” […] which was to falsely accuse the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] – the highest authority in the Ministerio Público [Office of the Public Attorney]- of having favored two companies allegedly related to drug trafficking.” * * * 72. As to the alleged violation of the right to honor of the alleged victim, based on the statements of the former Attorney General upon disclosing the contents of the telephone conversation to the Colegio Nacional de Abogados [National Bar Association], such argument was not upheld by the Commission, but only by the representatives (supra para. 70). 73. In this regard, the Court has determined that the alleged victim, his next of kin or his representatives may invoke rights other than those asserted in the application by the Commission, on the basis of the facts described therein.67 67 Cf. Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs.