32 related to the private affairs of the speakers, or to their business or professional activity.118 Hence, Article 11 applies to telephone conversations irrespective of their content and can even include both the technical operations designed to record this content by taping it and listening to it, or any other element of the communication process; for example, the destination or origin of the calls that are made, the identity of the speakers, the frequency, time and duration of the calls, aspects that can be verified without the need to record the content of the call by taping the conversation. In brief, the protection of privacy is manifested in the right that individuals other than those conversing may not illegally obtain information on the content of the telephone conversations or other aspects inherent in the communication process, such as those mentioned. 115. Today, the fluidity of information places the individual’s right to privacy at greater risk owing to the new technological tools and their increased use. This progress, especially in the case of telephone interceptions and recording, does not mean that the individual should be placed in a situation of vulnerability when dealing with the State or other individuals. Thus, the State must increase its commitment to adapt the traditional forms of protecting the right to privacy to current times. 116. Nevertheless, as Article 11(2) of the Convention makes clear, the right to privacy is not an absolute right and can be restricted by the States, provided interference is not abusive or arbitrary; to this end, it must be established by law, pursue a legitimate purpose and be necessary in a democratic society.119 117. Lastly, Article 11 of the Convention recognizes that every person has the right to respect for his honor, prohibits an illegal attack against honor and reputation, and imposes on the States the obligation to provide legal protection against such attacks. In general, the right to honor relates to self-esteem and self-worth, while reputation refers to the opinion that others have of a person.120 2(i) Private life and interception and recording of telephone conversations 118. The Commission alleged that although the laws that authorize the interception and monitoring of telephone or any other type of communications were formulated to combat crime, they can become an instrument for spying and harassment if they are interpreted and applied improperly. Hence, owing to the inherent danger of abuse in any monitoring system, this measure must be based on especially precise legislation with clear, detailed rules. The American Convention protects the confidentiality and inviolability of communications from any kind of arbitrary or abusive interference from the State or individuals; consequently, the surveillance, intervention, recording and dissemination of such communications is prohibited, except in the cases established by law that are adapted to the objects and purposes of the American Convention. 119. In addition, the Commission indicated in its application that, in the instant case, the interception and monitoring authorization was only requested for telephone line No. (044) 462-14[XX] belonging to COANA; therefore no authorization had been granted to intercept ADECON telephone line No. (044) 462-13[XX] in violation of Article 10 of Law No. 9,296/96.121 The telephone interception and monitoring application was submitted by a 118 Similarly, Cf. ECHR Case of Halford v. the United Kingdom, judgement of 27 May 1997, Reports 1997-III, paras. 44 and 45. 119 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 56. 120 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 57. 121 During the public hearing, the Commission stated that judicial authorization had been granted for the interception of the ADECON line, but this was after the monitoring had started.