2 Agapito Ruano Torres, to wit: his spouse María Maribel Guevara de Ruano, his son Oscar Manuel Ruano Guevara, his daughter Keili Lisbet Ruano Guevara and his cousin Pedro Torres Hércules. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 6. On December 12, 2003, the Commission received the petition dated November 27, 2003. The processing from the date the petition was lodged until the decision on admissibility was made is explained in full detail in the report on admissibility 77/08, issued on October 17, 2008.1 7. During the analysis on the merits, the Commission received information from the petitioner on the following dates: August 19, 2008; December 17, 2009; January 12, 2009; March 19, 2009; October 19, 2009; May 27, 2010; September 24, 2010; September 26, 2011; April 13, 2012; November 30, 2012; January 28, 2013; and July 8, 2013. On the other hand, the IACHR received information from the State on the following dates: January 22, 2009; February 3, 2009; May 12, 2009; August 13, 2009; September 9, 2009; January 19, 2010; March 2, 2010; and August 3, 2010. Those communications were duly forwarded to the parties. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioner 8. The petitioner contends that José Agapito Ruano Torres was unfairly tried and convicted for the kidnapping of Jaime Rodríguez Marroquín, on August 22, 2000. He argues that Mr. Ruano Torres was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison based on a judicial mistake regarding his identity and, therefore, the detention was arbitrary. The petitioner also contends that throughout the criminal trial of José Agapito Ruano Torres various public authorities taking part in the proceedings such as judges, prosecutors and public defenders were guilty of serious mistakes and omissions. The petitioner further points out that Mr. Ruano Torres was tortured at the time of his arrest. 9. In that regard, the petitioner maintains that the facts reported to the authorities began when Francisco Amaya Villalta, who was arrested in fragranti for extortion, confessed, in a preliminary statement made at the prosecutor’s office, to taking part in the kidnapping of Jaime Rodríguez Marroquín. The petitioner asserts that Mr. Amaya Villalta named every individual involved in the kidnapping with the exception of one whom “he only knew as Chopo”. 10. The petitioner alleges that, on the basis of that confession, National Civil Police investigators conducted only one inquiry which consisted of asking one person who lived in the area if he knew who “Chopo” was. The petitioner claims that, due to negligence, the name of that person was not included in the police identification record nor was it part of the case file. As a result, the petitioner claims, the police officers mistakenly concluded that the nickname belonged to José Agapito Ruano Torres when, in fact, the nickname belonged to one of his brothers, Rodolfo Ruano Torres. The petitioner contends that neither the police investigators nor the prosecutors compared the information regarding the address and physical characteristics of Chopo, which was provided by Francisco Amaya Villalta, with the information on José Agapito Ruano Torres’ identification card which was considerably different. 1 IACHR, Report No. 77/08, Petition 1094-3, Admissibility, José Agapito Ruano Torres, October 17, 2008.