Disciplinary Inquiry Unit of the National Civil Police; the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, and the Human Rights Commission of El Salvador. 7 The petitioner attaches the report issued by the Office of the Ombudsman, which says, “since there is no record in the extrajudicial investigation of a procedure carried out to ascertain that the nickname of “Chopo” belongs to José Agapito Ruano Torres, a situation of legal insecurity created; that is, no certainty exists as to how the investigators identified the accused.” The report adds that “the fact that the accused underwent a line-up after having been displayed to the media tainted or contaminated the evidence.” The report adds that the right to a fair trial of José Agapito Ruano Torres and the other accused persons was violated, and that in the case of José Agapito Ruano Torres there was also judicial error. The report recommended to the Public Defender's Office of the Attorney General's Office that it seek a review of José Agapito Ruano Torres’s conviction “bearing in mind the irregularities in the process, jointly endorsed by omission of the various participants in the proceedings (judges, prosecution, public defenders, and private parties).” 8 18. Based on the foregoing, the petitioner concludes that the way in which the criminal trial against the alleged victim was prosecuted "violated the presumption of innocence since the evidence considered in convicting José Agapito Ruano Torres was not sufficiently precise or consistent to prove beyond reasonable doubt the link that must exist between the perpetrator of the criminal wrongdoing and the crime,” which shows that the "case was approached with prejudice and the presumption that the accused was guilty.” The petitioner says that José Agapito Ruano Torres filed disciplinary complaints against the judges and the police agents but to no avail. 19. In his communication of December 14, 2006, by which time the Commission had begun to process the petition, the petitioner informed the IACHR that he had filed another motion to review in 2006, which was rejected by the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador on the grounds that Mr. Ruano Torres’ complaint –to the effect that he had been prevented from making a statement– was baseless, and that the evidence that the that same court had in due course weighed demonstrated the guilt of the convicted man. 20. As to admissibility requirements, the petitioner argues that domestic remedies were exhausted and that if remedies existed that were not attempted it was precisely because of the undefended state in which the alleged victim found himself as a result of the negligence and technical failings of the defender who was assigned to him. The petitioner argues that remedies exist that only a defense attorney may pursue, such as a motion for annulment or a supplementary appeal, which, he says, the defense counsel had negligently failed to invoke. Finally, as regards the argument of the State concerning failure to file for a writ of amparo, the petitioner notes that it is out of order because the suitable remedy provided by domestic law to stop an illegal detention is habeas corpus, which the alleged victim exhausted. B. The State 21. The State holds that the proceeding against Mr. Ruano Torres was initiated based on testimony received in the preliminary investigation from one of the accomplices in the kidnapping, who was granted a plea bargain in keeping with domestic criminal procedural law, based on which the prosecutor assigned to the case ordered the location and identification of the individuals mentioned in said testimony. 9 The State adds that the judicial decisions were "legally founded since the set judicial procedure and procedural stages were followed.” 7 The petitioner encloses a document from the Human Rights Commission, which contains a record of the testimony of Rodolfo Ruano Torres, in which he identifies himself as “Chopo” and testifies to his participation in the events under investigation. See Document of the Human Rights Commission of El Salvador, dated April 4, 2002. 8 The petitioner summarizes various passages from the resolution of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, and attaches the document as an annex. See Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, Case 01-1554 Ac. 01-0214-01, June 9, 2003. 9 In relation to the foregoing, the State mentioned in its first communication that the steps to identify the suspect “Chopo” had begun based on the testimony obtained in the preliminary investigation from Mr. Amaya Villalta, whereas in a later communication it said that those procedures had been carried out based on an extra judicial statement taken on October 9, 2000. See communications of the State of May 28, 2004, and February 10, 2005, respectively. 4