4 innocence and reiterate that it was his brother Rodolfo Ruano Torres who was known as Chopo. The petitioner adds that Mr. José Agapito Ruano Torres asked the public defenders to file motions to show that he was not Chopo, and that they request annulment of the actions carried out to locate and identify him as an alleged perpetrator of the kidnapping. But, the petitioner points out, those requests were turned down by the public defenders who themselves argued that “no one can beat the system” and that “nothing can be done […] there is no evidence that can overcome the testimony of a person who is the beneficiary of a plea bargain.” 17. The petitioner states that José Agapito Ruano Torres’ brother, Rodolfo, wanted to testify at the trial to make it clear that Chopo was his nickname and that he had indeed taken part in the kidnapping of Mr. Rodríguez Marroquín. However, the petitioner alleges that Rodolfo’s offer to testify was rejected by i) the prosecutors who did not want to take the testimony; ii) the various courts in which it was argued that “the evidence could not be corroborated,” and that “it was not the appropriate time in the proceedings do so,” and iii) Mr. Ruano Torres’ own public defenders who argued that “if the witness mentions him it would make him look guilty,” and that “one brother would be the kidnapper and the other the extortionist.” 18. In addition, the petitioner states that during the line-up identification the prosecutor told the victim to point out José Agapito Ruano Torres as one of the persons taking part in the kidnapping. The petitioner also asserts that the names registered in the record of the line-up identification did not match the persons who actually took part in the process. He adds that despite requests made by Mr. Ruano Torres, the public defenders did not file any motions seeking to have the line-up identification declared illegal. Furthermore, the petitioner says, even when he confronted one of the public defenders present at the lineup identification about the illegality of the process, the public defender merely responded that “he had not seen anything because his attention was focused on the young man.” 19. The petitioner points out that, given the failings exhibited by the public defense team, numerous requests were made to change the defenders assigned to the case. However, the petitioner says, those requests were turned down repeatedly until the situation was brought directly to the attention of the National Coordinator of Public Defenders and a third attorney was added to help the other two public defenders. The petitioner states that when the new attorney was asked to file for annulment of the line-up identification the attorney responded that she could not do so because “it would be detrimental to her fellow defender” and, she further stated, “jail doesn’t swallow up anyone.” 20. The petitioner states that several motions were filed in the various courts requesting the annulment of the line-up identification. However, he adds, those motions were rejected on grounds that the appropriate phase to consider them had passed and that “if those motions were going to be considered it would be [at] the appropriate time in the proceedings.” The petitioner also alleges that he lodged a petition with the Office of the Legal Advisor of the Office of the Attorney General charging irregularities in the conduct of the prosecutors during the trial. But, the petitioner says, the only thing he was asked was whether “he knew what it meant to accuse a prosecutor.” 21. The petitioner states that, faced with all the failings of his defense team, on December 7, 2000, Mr. Ruano Torres filed for a writ of habeas corpus alleging his illegal and arbitrary detention due to the mistake committed in identifying the person responsible for the kidnapping. The petitioner alleges that the petition was resolved almost a year later, on August 7, 2001, by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The petitioner adds that the court decided that the petition should be archived and that Mr. Ruano Torres should remain in custody. In that regard, the petitioner