31 98. On his part, on March 23, 1999, the Defensor del Pueblo [Ombudsman] issued a press release84 where he considered that: […] the wiretapping of the telephone conversation ordered by the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General], José Antonio Sossa, against the Juez Tercero Civil [Civil Judge Number Three] is unacceptable, disgraceful and very serious […] as it amounted to the violation of Article 29 of the Political Constitution, as well as of various international conventions on Human Rights which protect everyone’s right to privacy and the right not to be subjected to undue interference by the State. […] So, the Ombudsman repudiates, condemns and disapproves of the unreasonable and unfounded interference with the telephone communications of the Civil Judge ordered by the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General], […], without having valid reasons which justify such a worrisome, terrible and arbitrary measure. 99. The former Attorney General issued a public clarification,85 which contained no date, in which he pointed out that Article 26 of the Single Text of Law of August 29, 1994, empowered him to authorize the recording of telephone conversations and communications of those persons who might be involved in a wrongdoing, such as bribery of public officials, when there is evidence that a serious crime has been perpetrated. He likewise added that “[a]ssessing whether there is evidence or not of a serious crime, and whether it is serious or not, is the obvious duty of the only public official authorized to do so, the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General].” 100. In view of the foregoing, on March 25, 1999, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Panamá Arturo Hoyos addressed a note86 to the former Attorney General which was widely taken up by the press,87 and where he pointed out that: [I] have gained knowledge through the press that you ordered interference with telephone communications of a member of the Judiciary and that such Court official started a criminal prosecution against you. I have also read the communication in which explained the reasons for such action. […] The Supreme Court of Justice has not given you, Attorney General, a blank or endorsement to order the wiretapping of telephone communications. the has you full 101. On March 26, 1999, the day after the press conference called by Mr. Tristán Donoso, the former Attorney General filed a criminal complaint against him before the Fiscalía Auxiliar de la República [Auxiliary Office of the Public Attorney] for the 84 Cf. Press release of the Ombudsman on March 23, 1999 (Case File of Appendixes to the Reply to the Application, Book IV, Volume I, Appendix B-2, folio 4842). Later on, the Ombudsman, delivered documents related to the instant case to the Procuradora de la Administración [Solicitor for the Administration]. Cf. Official Letter D.P.P.-R.P. No. 177/99 of April 15, 1999 by the Ombudsman of Panamá, supra note 83, folio 1636. 85 Public clarification bearing no date, of the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] (Case File of Appendixes to the Application, Book I, Appendix 24, folio 1569). 86 Cf. Note No. P-CSJ-015-99 of March 25, 1999 signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Panamá and addressed to the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] (Case File of Appendixes to the Motions, Pleadings and Evidence Brief, Book I, Appendix 16, folio 2516). 87 Cf. La Prensa newspaper, Friday March 26, 1999 issue, article entitled “Escándalo de intervenciones telefónicas, Hoyos desmiente al procurador” [Scandal over telephone wiretapping. Hoyos contradicts the Attorney General] (Case File of Appendixes to the Reply to the Application, Book IV, Volume I, Appendix B-2, folio 4850), and the “El Siglo” newspaper, Friday March 26, 1999 issue, supra note 80, folio 3463).