23 74. Along such lines, the Court notes that from the application filed by the Commission it appears that “the first disclosure [of the telephone conversation] was made at a meeting held at the Office of the Attorney General with the members of the Junta Directiva del Colegio Nacional de Abogados [National Bar Association Governing Board]”, during which, according to the representatives, the former Attorney General used expressions which affected the honor and reputation of Mr. Tristán Donoso (supra para. 70). Consequently, such argument submitted by the representatives is based on a fact described in the application and, so, may be considered by the Court. * * * 75. The Court considers the telephone conversation between Mr. Zayed and Mr. Tristán Donoso to have been private and that none of the two of them consented to its disclosure to third parties. Moreover, as such conversation was held between the alleged victim and one of his clients,68 it should even be afforded a greater degree of protection on account of professional secrecy. 76. The disclosure of the telephone conversation by a public official implied an interference with the privacy of Mr. Tristán Donoso. The Court must examine whether such interference was arbitrary or abusive under the terms of Article 11(2) of the Convention or whether it was in line with such treaty. As it has been already indicated (supra, para. 56), in order to be in line with the American Convention, an instance of interference must meet the following standards: to be contemplated in legislation, to serve a legitimate purpose, and to be suitable, necessary, and proportionate. Consequently, the failure to meet any one of such standards implies the measure runs contrary to the Convention. Legality of the interference 77. The first step in order to analyze whether an interference with a right enshrined by the American Convention is in line with such treaty is to examine whether the restrictive measure meets the legality standard. This means that the general conditions and circumstances, which allow restricting the exercise of a declared human right must be clearly established by statute.69 The rule, which allows Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 121; and Case of Escué-Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 92. 68 Cf. Statements rendered before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit (affidavits) by Ms. Aimée Urrutia-Delgado on June 24, 2008 (Case file on the merits, Book II, folio 521); by Bishop Emeritus Carlos María Ariz on June 24, 2008 (Case file on the merits, Book II, folio 529) and by Walid Zayed on June 26, 2008 (Case file on the merits, Book II, folio 533). 69 Article 30 of the American Convention sets forth that: The restrictions that, pursuant to this Convention, may be placed on the enjoyment or exercise of the rights or freedoms recognized herein may not be applied except in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established.