investigation phase had concluded and that “his defense should have entered those requests at the appropriate time.”3 13. The petitioner also says that on September 5, 2001, the alleged victim submitted another brief to the Court in which he mentioned the faults in the defense team that had been assigned to him, and alleged that his defender had ordered him not to present a preliminary statement, and that he had only managed to harm his interests in each of the procedural acts in which he had taken part. He also alleged that fraud had been committed in the line-up and that he had told his defender and the judge that a relative had precise information about the person known as “Chopo”; however, both had refused to receive the information. In the same communication, he said that he had sought previously to present a brief to the office of the prosecutor indicating that the person who answered to the aforesaid alias was prepared to come forward and give a statement, but that too was rejected. The Court, in a decision of September 17, 2001, had purportedly merely ruled in this regard that, "as to the witness testimony offered […] this Court considers that a decision will be made as to whether to admit said evidence at an appropriate time in the proceedings.”4 14. The petitioner also says that on September 13, 2001, in view of the above-alleged inaction and negligence of the defense, José Agapito Ruano Torres decided to appoint his own defense counsel, who moved that the public hearing be suspended to enable him to study the case, which motion was denied. The alleged victim revoked the aforesaid defense counsel's power of attorney due to his lack of familiarity with the case. 15. The petitioner adds that on September 27, 2001, Roberto Ruano Torres (brother of José Agapito) and two other individuals presented a brief to the Court indicating that a brother of the alleged victim named Rodolfo was known by the nickname of “Chopo”, and that “if what the case says is true, the person who should know anything is the brother who goes by that ALIAS.”5 The petitioner also attaches an official communication dated September 21, 2001, 6 in which the Mayor of Guazapa attests to the good name of José Agapito Ruano Torres and says that the nickname of “Chopo” in reality belongs to his brother “who is called Rodolfo Ruano Torres; and that is the person whom the PNC went to find and that owing to a misunderstanding, young José Agapito was arrested.” 16. The petitioner notes that the public hearing was held on October 5, 2001, before the Second Trial Court. He says that in the course of the hearing, Rodolfo Ruano Torres (José Agapito’s brother) sought to testify but the Court refused him. He adds that the victim of the kidnapping had again identified José Agapito Ruano Torres as one of the perpetrators of the crime but that was due to the public exposure that the accused had received beforehand, and that the kidnap victim said during his testimony that his recognition and identification were based on images that he had seen published in the media. The petitioner says that José Agapito was defended at the public hearing by the public defender, who did not lodge any motions on his behalf during a hearing or appeal the conviction that was handed down that same day. He says that in view of the foregoing, the alleged victim on his own behalf filed motions to review the conviction with the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador on August 1, 2003 and September 22, 2003, in which he offered to present his brother, Rodolfo, as a witness. The two motions were ruled inadmissible on August 13 and September 29, 2003, respectively. The Court found with respect to the first motion that the convicted man’s constitutional guarantees had not been violated and that the second motion was a reiteration of the first. 17. The petitioner also informed that the above-alleged situation was brought to the attention of the Department of Investigation of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court Justice; the 3 The petitioner cites and attaches as an annex the Resolution of the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, June 22, 2001. 4 The petitioner cites and attaches as an annex the Resolution del Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, September 17, 2001. 5 The petitioner attaches a brief signed by Roberto Ruano Torres and two other persons, dated September 27, 2001. 6 The petitioner attaches the aforesaid official communication signed by the Mayor of the Department of San Salvador. See: Written communication signed by the Mayor of the Department of San Salvador, September 21, 2001 3