5 contends that the petition was not effective because the court’s decision referred only to the fact that Mr. Ruano Torres had been identified prior to his arrest and that the police officers were fully informed of his identity and his place of residence. 22. The petitioner points out that the alleged victim sought to protect his own rights due to the refusal of his public defense team to file any motions. In that regard, the petitioner alleges that Mr. Ruano Torres filed two briefs with the Second Trial Court on June 18 and on September 5, 2001, respectively. The petitioner indicates that the briefs requested that the actions of the National Civil Police officers be investigated and also requested that investigators be sent to his area of residence in order to verify that, in fact, the nickname Chopo belonged to his brother Rodolfo Ruano Torres. 23. The petitioner also contends that allegations were made with regard to the failings of the public defenders assigned to Mr. Ruano Torres, denouncing the fact that he had been ordered not to testify and that his case had suffered in each of the proceedings in which he had taken part. The petitioner also points out that allegations of fraud were lodged regarding the line-up identification and that the precise identity of the person known as Chopo was available since he was Rodolfo, the brother of José Agapito Ruano Torres, who was willing to come forward and testify. However, the petitioner says, the first request was denied on grounds that the investigative phase had concluded and, it was pointed out, that “the request should have been made by your defender at the appropriate time.” The second request was also denied without any explanation given. 24. The petitioner points out that given the constant failings of Mr. Ruano Torres’ public defenders during the proceedings, they were able to obtain enough money to hire a private attorney which they did on September 13, 2001. But, the petitioner says, due to the fact that the Second Trial Court rejected the motion to suspend the public hearing in order for the attorney to study the case, Mr. Ruano Torres revoked the power of attorney granted to private counsel, and, the petitioner adds, the public defenders had to represent him during the final stage of the proceedings. 25. The petitioner says that during the public hearing held before the Second Trial Court, Rodolfo Ruano Torres, José Agapito’s brother, tried to testify to try to clarify that he was known as Chopo and that he was the one who took part in the kidnapping. However, the petitioner points out, his offer to testify was not accepted. The petitioner adds that at that public hearing the victim of the kidnapping stated that the identification of his kidnappers was based on the images disseminated by the media. The petitioner also states that the court refused to allow the introduction of the confession of Toribio Chiquillo Rodríguez, one of the persons charged with the kidnapping, who said that José Agapito Ruano Torres was innocent. “..the person taking part, whom I know, and was present in the perpetration of the fact and is identified by the alias Chopo [and] whose name is Rodolfo Ruano Torres”. The petitioner further states that Mr. Ruano Torres was not allowed to testify even though he stated “I am willing to testify.” 26. The petitioner states that the public defenders of José Agapito Ruano Torres did not file any motions on his behalf during the public hearing and did not appeal the conviction handed down on October 5, 2001, which sentenced Mr. Ruano Torres to fifteen years in jail. The petitioner argues that there were motions that could have been filed only by the defense such as a motion for revocation of judgment with supplementary appeal which the public defenders neglected to file. The petitioner contends that one of the public defenders for Mr. Ruano Torres told him that “it has been proven that no one can overcome the system and, therefore, no motions would be filed.”