38 inquiry into the act of extortion, in the sworn statement rendered during the proceedings against Mr. Tristán Donoso, held that such person “was not a claimant, complainant, individual accuser, judicial representative of the victim, victim, witness, expert, interpreter, translator, accused, suspect, incidental third party, contributing third party, defense attorney, in the initial inquiry carried out into the alleged crime of ‘Extortion’, perpetrated to the detriment of Mr. ADEL ZAYED and of young WALID ZAYED.”111 A similar opinion was expressed by Inspector Hurtado, who was in charge of the inquiry into the extortion, and, at the hearing held in the case against Mr. Tristán Donoso, claimed that “[neither Prosecutor Prado nor herself] had nothing to do with [the victim, they were], handling a case of extortion […] but he has nothing to do with this.��112 126. Furthermore, the Court realizes that Mr. Tristán Donoso not only had reasons to believe in the accuracy of the statement attributing the recording to the Attorney General then in office. In the written statement given before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit, submitted to this Court, Bishop Carlos María Ariz mentioned that when he became aware of the content of the tape and of its transcript, “h[e] went over to the office of the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General], together with [the victim], to demand appropriate explanations on the telephone wiretappings.”113 It is a deposition by a witness which has not been neither challenged nor objected by the State. At the same time, the Court also observes that the statements made by Mr. Tristán Donoso were supported by two important institutions: the Colegio de Abogados de Panamá [Panamá Bar Association] and the Defensoría del Pueblo de Panamá [Panamá Office of the Ombudsman], the heads of which accompanied Mr. Tristán Donoso at the press conference where the challenged statements were made. Lastly, the criminal report he filed on account of such events is an additional element purporting that he considered he had sufficient grounds for his statements (supra para. 47). All these elements led the Court to conclude that it was not possible to sustain that his expression was groundless and, consequently, that the criminal remedy was a necessary action. 127. The Court also realizes that some of such elements were assessed in the acquittal ordered by the Juzgado Noveno de Circuito Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de Panamá [Panamá First Court Circuit Criminal Circuit Court Number Nine], which provided: […] in our opinion, there is no legal certainty that Mr. SANTANDER TRISTÁN DONOSO actually knew the source of that recording or, at least, suspected that such recording was obtained through means other than those he alleged; particularly considering that by 1999, all evidence pointed to the individual accuser, given the events that were occurring which, in our opinion, could have influenced or determined the decision by Mr. TRISTÁN DONOSO to publicly express his discomfort, as he was firmly convinced that in fact the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] had also participated in wiretapping his 111 Cf. Official Letter No. 1289-99, by Prosecutor Prado dated April 7, 1999, supra note 60, folio 4397. 112 Cf. Minutes of Hearing No. 32 of July 11, 2002, in the framework of the procedings instituted against Mr. Tristán Donoso for a crime against honor, supra note 30, folio 2618. 113 Statement rendered before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit by Bishop Carlos María Ariz, supra note 16, folio 529.