57 exclusively, ordered as reparation for violations of the rights to life, to humane treatment and to personal liberty.161 The Tribunal does not believe such measure to be necessary in order to redress the violations verified in the instant case. Along such lines, the measure ordering that the criminal conviction and its consequences be set aside, the instant Judgment, and its publication constitute important reparation measures. d) Duty to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the violations of the human rights of Mr. Tristán Donoso. 201. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to conduct a complete, impartial and effective investigation in order to establish the circumstances in which the telephone conversation at issue in the instant case was wiretapped, recorded and disclosed, to identify the persons involved in such acts, to prosecute them and to punish them as is due. 202. The representatives alleged that such measure had to be adopted in relation to all those involved in wiretapping, recording and disclosing the telephone conversation between the victim and Adel Zayed, and in relation to those who obstructed the inquiry carried out against the former Attorney General. 203. The Court finds it unproven that there was lack of diligence in the investigation of the wiretapping and recording of the telephone conversation (supra para. 151), and therefore deems it unnecessary to order, as a reparation measure, the inquiry into such facts. On the other hand, regarding the matter of disclosure of the telephone conversation, the Court deems the instant Judgment and its publication constitute sufficient reparation measures. e) Enactment of legislation on wiretapping and on the use of information held by the authorities and concerning the private life of a person 204. The representatives argued that Panamanian legislation on wiretapping is scarce, for Section 26 of Law No. 23 is still in force, although in 2004 the Constitution was amended to allow private communications to be wiretapped or recorded only under an order issued by a judicial authority. Likewise, they argued that legislation on the use of private information by public officials is not clear and effective enough, especially in the event of transmission and storage of such information. 205. Regarding the alleged recording of the telephone conversation or the rules governing wiretapping, the Tribunal did not declare Article 11 of the Convention to have been violated; so, it shall not order that reparation measures be adopted with regard thereto (supra paras. 66 and 67). 206. Nevertheless, the Court notes and views favorably the constitutional amendment effected by the State in 2004 pursuant to which private communications may only be wiretapped or recorded under a judicial order. The Court underscores the importance of adopting, forthwith, the legislative and administrative measures that may be necessary to implement such constitutional amendment in such a way as to establish that the legal procedures to be followed by judicial authorities in order to authorize wiretapping comply with the purposes and other obligations set forth in 161 Cf. Case of Castañeda-Gutman, supra note 4, para. 239.