3 11. The petitioner charges that police investigators subsequently persuaded Francisco Amaya Villalta to make a second statement, but of a judicial nature, indicating that José Agapito Ruano Torres was indeed nicknamed Chopo. According to the petitioner, this was done in order for Francisco Amaya Villalta to benefit from a plea bargain to avoid prosecution for the kidnapping offense. However, the petitioner charges that such action was illegal and arbitrary given that i) the Justice of the Peace of Guazapa did not provide the legal grounds to validate the offer of a plea bargain in this particular case; ii) Francisco Amaya Villalta was not eligible for this benefit since he was not a “minor participant” but, rather, he was one of the masterminds of the kidnapping, he had been previously convicted of several crimes and had changed his identity; iii) neither Mr. Ruano Torres nor his defense counsel were present when Mr. Francisco Amaya Villalta made this sworn statement, and iv) this statement was not provided without fear of reprisal but had been drafted by the prosecutors themselves as evidenced by the use of “a series of technical legal terms.” 12. The petitioner contends that, on the basis of that statement, on October 17, 2000, José Agapito Ruano Torres was arrested and subjected to acts of torture. He further alleges that police officers entered Mr. Ruano Torres’ home while he was sleeping with his spouse and his two-year-old son. The petitioner says that the officers broke down the door to the home, pushed Mr. Ruano Torres to the ground, beat him and handcuffed him. The petitioner further contends that Mr. Ruano Torres was dragged on the floor until taken out of his home, that a rope was placed around his neck and that he was choked to the point of “losing consciousness,” and that his head was pressed against a mound of manure. 13. The petitioner also points out that the police officers threatened to kill José Agapito Ruano Torres and even threatened to rape him “with an object they would show him,” in order to force him to confess that he was “Chopo.” The petitioner states that right in front of the television cameras covering the events, Mr. Ruano Torres said he was innocent and that he was not called Chopo by others. However, the petitioner maintains that the police officers would say that “they were taking him because he was a kidnapper.” In that regard, the petitioner contends that the communications media irresponsibly recorded Mr. Agapito Torres and reported information assuming that he was one of the kidnappers. He further indicates that, as noted in the medical report completed after his detention, José Agapito Ruano Torres had several lacerations that resulted from the various forms of mistreatment to which he was subjected by the police officers. 14. The petitioner alleges that these facts were reported to the Disciplinary Inquiry Unit of the National Civil Police. But, the petitioner says, that unit argued that it found no grounds to merit an investigation of the police agents’ conduct and the case was therefore forwarded to the sub-regional Office of the Attorney General in Apopa. The petitioner argues that even though the prosecutor examining the case had the names of the police officers that took part in the abuse, he did not pursue the inquiry given that “the subject of the investigation was a kidnapping offense.” 15. The petitioner points out that neither the search nor arrest warrants nor the record that the accused was informed of his rights bore the signature of any attorney. On the contrary, the petitioner points out that later in the process, for purposes of “meeting a requirement,” the signature of a public defender who had never met José Agapito Ruano Torres was added. 16. The petitioner alleges that Mr. Ruano Torres was assigned two public defenders prior to the preliminary hearing before the Justice of the Peace for and in Tonacatepeque. The petitioner contends that the public defenders did not allow Mr. Ruano Torres to testify although he wanted to maintain his