8 to persons who, although involved in the criminal facts, are willing to cooperate with the investigation. The State further contends that thanks to Amaya Villata’s cooperation, the offense “did not remain unpunished as it would have been the case had Mr. Amaya Villata not cooperated.” 38. The State points out that due to the fact that this person identified one of the perpetrators of the kidnapping as Chopo, every effort was made to identify that person. The State maintains that the police investigators “were informed that this [nickname] belongs to Agapito Ruano”. The State asserts that subsequently, in his sworn testimony, Francisco Amaya Villalta himself that Chopo was José Agapito Ruano Torres, “the same individual who had been identified as such in the police investigations.” 39. With regard to the arrest of Mr. Ruano Torres and the search of his residence, the State contends that he was identified “by referring to a certified photocopy of his identification card” prior to his arrest which was carried out in accordance with a duly issued warrant. The State argues that agents from the Police Strike Force went to Mr. Ruano Torres’s residence to make the arrest and that, once they entered the home, Mr. Ruano Torres resisted. The State contends that because of the resistance, agents had to “use force commensurate with the level of resistance put up by the arrestee.” The State says that, afterwards, Mr. Ruano Torres was told why he was being arrested. The State also points out that the medical examination of Mr. Ruano Torres did not reveal the presumed physical mistreatment the petitioner alleges. 40. With regard to media coverage of the arrest of José Agapito Ruano Torres, the State points out that those were not state controlled publications but private media outlets. Therefore, the State argues, “there is recognition of the right to freedom of expression which allows the dissemination of ideas and information within certain limits.” 41. With regard to the allegations of the petitioner referring to presumed failings in the actions of Mr. Ruano Torres’s public defenders, the State contends that at no time during the process was Mr. Ruano Torres without defense counsel. On the contrary, the State argues that from the moment of his arrest onward, Mr. Ruano Torres was assisted by a team of public defenders who remained on the case until its completion. The State argues that although it is true that the public defenders did not file a series of motions, this was not due to negligence but rather that “it was the opinion of legal counsel, based on a responsible and detailed analysis, that the filing of motions was not in order.” 42. The State contends that what the petitioner argues with regard to the alleged pointing out of José Agapito Ruano Torres by the prosecutor to the victim of the kidnapping during the line-up identification is false. In that regard, the State notes that the record of that process indicates that José Agapito Ruano Torres was identified by the victim and states that, in such procedures “the accused is behind a glass through which he cannot see and, therefore, Mr. Ruano could not have seen the prosecutor allegedly tell the victim to point him out.” The State also points out that one of Mr. Ruano Torres’s public defenders was also present during the proceeding and that, if the theory sustained by the petitioner were true, “the public defender would have undoubtedly requested the annulment of the proceeding.” 43. With regard to the conviction of José Agapito Ruano Torres, the State points out that two elements of “great legal weight” were taken into account in order to determine his participation in the kidnapping: i) the taking of evidence in advance of trial of Francisco Amaya Villalta, in addition to