26 Rodolfo Ruano Torres appear at the hearing as evidence since he was known as Chopo. On August 13, 2003, the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador ruled the motion inadmissible stating that there had not been any violation of his constitutional guarantees because José Agapito Ruano Torres chose not to make a statement.139 103. On September 22, 2003, José Agapito Ruano Torres again filed with the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador a motion to review based on the same arguments.140 On September 29, 2003, the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador decided not to admit this new motion because it considered it a reiteration of the previous motion.141 104. On October 4, 2004, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman ratified its previous resolution of June 9, 2003.142 It reiterated the i) violations found during the prosecution and trial of Mr. Ruano Torres; ii) the responsibility of the three public defenders, the Office of the Attorney General and the various judges who participated in the proceedings; and iii) requested that the public defenders pursue the review of the judgment against Agapito.143 105. On September 12, 2006, Toribio Chiquillo Rodríguez, one of the persons convicted in the kidnapping of Mr. Marroquín, submitted a brief to the Second Trial Court indicating that the individual who took part in the kidnapping was Rodolfo Ruano Torres, who goes by the nickname Chopo, and not José Agapito Ruano Torres.144 He stated that from the very beginning of the proceedings, the prosecutors did not allow him to testify that José Agapito Ruano Torres did not participate at any time in the kidnapping of Mr. Marroquín and that he had just met him during the criminal proceedings.145 106. On November 22, 2006, José Agapito Ruano Torres filed a new motion to review with the Second Trial Court.146 He argued that he was not allowed to make a statement even though he stated “I am willing to testify.”147 He also argued that Mr. Marroquín admitted that his pointing to and recognition of Mr. Ruano Torres was based on the communications media and even repeated “I saw them in the newspapers and in one video.”148 He also requested that the evidence presented be discussed and analyzed –documentary statement regarding his work on the day of the kidnapping and 139 Annex 1. Brief of the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, dated August 13, 2003, page 713, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 140 Annex 1. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres, dated September 22, 2003, page 715, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 141 Annex 1. Brief of the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, dated September 29, 2003, page 716, criminal case file 77-2001- 2. 142 Annex 22. Resolution of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated October 4, 2004. Annex to the petitioner’s brief of February 14, 2005. 143 Annex 22. Resolution of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated October 4, 2004. Annex to the petitioner’s brief of February 14, 2005. 144 Annex 23. Brief of Toribio Chiquillo Rodríguez submitted to the Second Trial Court, dated September 12, 2006. Annex to the petitioner’s brief dated April 11, 2007. 145 Annex 1. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, case file 01-1554 Ac. 01-0214-01, June 9, 2003, page 697, criminal case file 77- 2001-2. 146 Annex 24. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted to the Second Trial Court, dated November 22, 2006. Annex to the petitioner’s brief dated April 11, 2007. 147 Annex 24. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted to the Second Trial Court, dated November 22, 2006. Annex to the petitioner’s brief dated April 11, 2007. 148 Annex 24. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted to the Second Trial Court dated November 22, 2006. Annex to the petitioner’s brief dated April 11, 2007.