10 48. The State notes that the allegations referring to mutinies or attacks in the penitentiary where Mr. Ruano Torres was held do not relate to the specific case. In fact, the State points out, Mr. Ruano Torres receives the recommended penitentiary treatment according to “his own criminological diagnosis,” and that’s why he is in the program to control aggressive behavior. 49. Furthermore, with regard to the revocation of José Agapito Ruano Torres’s parole in 2009, the State argues that the decision was based on the fact that, according to the legislation in force, persons convicted of kidnapping such as Mr. Ruano Torres, are not eligible to receive this benefit. The State adds that since March 13, 2009, Mr. José Agapito Ruano Torres was granted admission into the “trust phase” in the penitentiary system which allowed him to obtain temporary passes to leave the penitentiary every fifteen days, to get a job, to increase the number of visits allowed for family members and friends, and to have better access within the penitentiary. Moreover, the State notes, beginning on December 14, 2009, Mr. Ruano Torres was placed on the “day-release phase” which allows him to hold jobs outside the penitentiary, have passes to leave the penitentiary for longer periods of time […], to be able to receive more visits; assistance to find employment, prepare documents and, if necessary, to find housing.” The State points out that on February 12, 2010, José Agapito Ruano Torres was transferred to the “La Esperanza” Penitentiary, which is located in the city of San Salvador, in order to get him closer to his family. 50. In conclusion, the State contends that, within the framework of the judicial proceedings, evidence was obtained and introduced following due process. The State reiterates that there was sufficient evidence to implicate José Agapito Ruano Torres. This is based on two pieces of evidence presented during the trial: the identification of Mr. Ruano Torres by Francisco Amaya Villalta, the witness benefitting from a plea bargain, and the pointing out of Mr. Ruano Torres during line-up identification by the victim of the kidnapping, Jaime Rodríguez Marroquín. For that reason, the State considers that it did not violate Mr. Ruano Torres’s rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection. Based on this due process which resulted in the conviction of Mr. Ruano Torres, the State argues that his confinement in prison is not arbitrary. The State also contends that there was no evidence to support the claim that José Agapito Ruano Torres had been tortured at the time of his arrest. IV. ESTABLISHED FACTS 51. In accordance with the provisions of Article 43(1) of its Rules and Procedures, the IACHR will examine the arguments and evidence presented by the parties and information that is the matter of public knowledge.2 A. Identification and arrest of José Agapito Ruano Torres 52. On the evening of August 22, 2000, Mr. Jaime Rodríguez Marroquín was driving a transport bus to the city of Tonacatepeque3. Along the route, he was approached by three armed who 2 Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR establishes: The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge. 3 2. Annex 1. Record of interview of bus fare collector Mauricio Torres Mejía dated August 25, 2000, page 21, criminal case file 77-2001-