41 obliged not only to abstain from disseminating the contents of the conversations, but also to order an investigation into the facts owing to his situation as a State agent and to the nature of his functions. In the Commission’s opinion, “although the State […] has acquitted the person who was presumably responsible [for the dissemination of the telephone conversations] through a decision of the courts, this does not exempt it from responsibility, because the international protection of human rights should not be confused with criminal justice.” The Brazilian Judiciary acknowledged that the recordings were disseminated even though they were under the exclusive custody and control of the State. The dissemination of the recorded tapes constituted a violation of the right to honor and dignity of every individual, which includes their privacy, according to Article 11 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 30 and 32(2) thereof. 148. In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives indicated that, during the press conference held on June 8, 1999, the former Secretary of Security distributed partial transcripts and a copy of part of the tapes with illegally recorded conversations to journalists, thus failing to observe the judicial confidentiality established by law. Subsequently, these recordings were broadcast on an important television news program in Brazil, the Jornal Nacional.141 The representatives claimed that the said official made a statement to the press accusing the victims of criminal offenses that had not been proved in court, including the illegal possession of firearms and a plan to attack police and court officials. According to the representatives, the disparaging remarks of the former Secretary of Security reinforced the pattern of criminalizing the activities of human rights defenders and social movements fighting for land in Brazil carried out by State agents. In summary, the representatives affirmed that the State had interfered illegally, abusively and arbitrarily in the privacy, honor and dignity of the people whose conversations were intercepted, recorded and disseminated by State agents. 149. The State asserted that a criminal action had been filed to examine the alleged violation of judicial confidentiality by the former Secretary of Security, as a result of which “he was acquitted because his conduct did not characterize a crime,” since it had been proved during the proceedings that it was not this official who disseminated part of the contents of the tapes. The criminal offense supposedly committed by the former Secretary of Security was examined by the domestic courts, and the criminal action was tried in keeping with the predominant national case law as well as international jurisprudence, according to the Inter-American Commission’s conclusion in its Report on Merits that the Convention had not been violated by the way in which the criminal investigation had been conducted (infra para. 182). Accordingly, the State claimed that the conduct of the former Secretary Cândido Martins should not be discussed before the Court, because it did not reveal aspects that could constitute the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention. * * * 150. The Court observes that portions of the recordings obtained by the telephone interceptions were shown on the news program Jornal Nacional on June 7, 1999 (supra para. 94). An investigation was never conducted into the handing over to the television network of the probative material that was in the State’s custody and protected by judicial confidentiality and on which this news report was based. In view of the State’s failure to determine what occurred, the information that was illegally handed over, and the State agents responsible (infra para. 205) it is not possible to identify the exact contents of the 141 The representatives alleged that “[o]n the evening of the day [of the press conference], June 8, portions of some of the intercepted calls were disseminated out of context during the evening news program called ‘Jornal Nacional.’” Brief with pleadings and motions (merit file, tome I, folio 316).