44 the organizations administered by the victim or of which they were members, and their names could be negatively related to criminal activities. 158. Based on the above, the Court considers that the telephone conversations of the victims and those related to the organizations they were members of were of a private nature and none of the speakers authorized the conversations being heard by third parties. Thus, the dissemination by State agents of the telephone conversations that were protected by the judicial confidentiality entailed interference in the privacy, honor and reputation of the victims. The Court must examine whether this interference was compatible with Article 11(2) of the Convention. 159. In order to assess whether the interference in the privacy and in the honor and reputation of the alleged victims was allowed in light of the American Convention, the Court will first examine whether the dissemination of the recorded conversations complied with the requirement of legality as described above (supra paras. 116 and 130). a) Legality of the interference 160. The Brazilian Constitution establishes the right to the inviolability of the confidentiality of telephone communications, except in the situations defined in Law No. 9,296/96. Article 9 of this norm stipulates that, during a telephone interception procedure of any kind, “the confidentiality of the procedures, the recordings and the respective transcripts” must be preserved. Moreover, Article 10 of this law defines as an offense the act of “breaching judicial confidentiality without judicial authorization or for purposes that have not been authorized by law” (supra para. 141). 161. In the instant case, the material obtained by the telephone interceptions, which was in the custody of the State and protected by judicial confidentiality, was made known to third parties who were not involved in the monitoring petition on two occasions: (i) by an unidentified State agent who delivered to the Globo Television Network the tapes on which the report shown on June 7, 1999, was based, and (ii) by the former Secretary of Security, who handed over transcripts of portions of the recordings to journalists present at the press conference on June 8, 1999, and let them hear audio extracts from the recorded tapes. 162. Regarding the first dissemination, the State has not provided a satisfactory explanation as to how private conversations intercepted and recorded during a criminal investigation and protected by judicial confidentiality ended up in the hands of one of the media. The delivery of the material to the television station was contrary to Articles 1, 8 and 10 of Law No. 9,296/96. The Court considers that it is a State obligation to respect the confidentiality of telephone conversations intercepted during a criminal investigation, that is: (a) necessary to protect the privacy of the persons subjected to a measure of this nature; (b) pertinent for the effects of the investigation itself, and (c) fundamental for the satisfactory administration of justice. In the instant case, this was information that should have remained known only to a limited number of police and judicial authorities and the State failed to comply with its obligation to protect it adequately. 163. Regarding the dissemination by the former Secretary of Security, his conduct could have had the purpose of informing the population about a matter of general interest by presenting a factual summary of the events. However, in the press conference, he allowed other persons to hear the tapes of the recordings and he distributed printed portions of the conversations without legal authorization or a court order as required by Law No. 9,296/96. 164. Consequently, the Court considers that, by disseminating private conversations that were protected by judicial confidentiality without respecting the legal requirements, the State violated the victims’ right to the protection of their privacy, honor and reputation