48 However, as to the disclosure of the conversation in question, the Corte Suprema de Justicia de Panamá [Supreme Court of Justice of Panamá] pointed out that “[t]he cassette reached the hands of the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General], JOSÉ ANTONIO SOSSA, who made it available to some members of the Colegio de Abogados de Panamá [Panamá Bar Association] governing board […] and to the Archbishop of Panamá JOSÉ DIMAS CEDEÑO”, and merely transcribed the reasons the former Attorney General gave for having effected the disclosure in question.141 157. The Court considers that the Corte Suprema de Justicia [Supreme Court of Justice] should have provided the grounds for its decision regarding the point on disclosure of the telephone conversation and, should the Court have found that such disclosure existed – as it appears from the decision – it should have given the reasons why such act was described or not in a criminal statute and, if applicable, should have considered the pertinent responsibilities. Consequently, the Court considers that the State failed to fulfill its duty to provide the grounds for its decision on the disclosure of the telephone conversation, in violation of the “due guarantees” set forth in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Tristán Donoso. 2) Regarding the Court proceedings for the crimes against honor against Mr. Tristán Donoso 158. The Inter-American Commission did not allege a violation of the right to a fair trial set forth in Article 8 of the American Convention, in accordance with the private criminal charges for crimes against honor brought against Mr. Tristán Donoso. 159. However, the representatives alleged that during the investigation in the criminal prosecution brought against Mr. Tristán Donoso, he was prevented from exercising his right of defense: a) in violation of the legislation of Panamá, he was denied procedural standing as a party to such proceedings and, consequently, he was denied access to the case record file142, and b) he was summoned to render his first interrogatory statement “through a note that only stated that he should appear before the Office of the Prosecutor ‘to comply with a Court proceeding’, without explaining neither the charges brought against him nor the facts on which those charges were grounded”. Furthermore, the representatives held that the authorities in charge of conducting the investigation held a rank below that of the former Attorney General – the individual accuser-, who “had a personal and private interest in the matter” and “a position of power with regard to [the prosecutors that were in charge of the investigation]”. In the opinion of the representatives, such situation attained per se the impartiality and independence of the aforementioned State agents. Lastly, they alleged that the judgment rendered by the Segundo Tribunal Superior de Justicia [Superior Court of Justice Number Two] “violated the principle whereby everyone must be presumed innocent, convicting Mr. Tristán [Donoso] without having the prosecution prove that he acted with the intention to bring false 141 Judgment by the Corte Suprema de Justicia de Panamá [Supreme Court of Justice of Panamá] of December 3, 1999, supra note 46, folio 1748. 142 In such regard, the representatives held that Article 2006 of the Judicial Code in force at the time of the events provided in its Article 2006 that “[t]he criminal action is brought against the accused who is any person against whom […] criminal proceedings are brought”. Likewise, they pointed out that Article 2038 of such Code established that “[t]he accused may avail himself of his or her rights under the Constitution and statute, as from the initial act of the prosecution against him […]”. (Case File on the Merits, Book I, folio 243.)