40. With respect to pre-trial detention, the Commission notes that Mr. José Agapito Ruano Torres’ capture and arrest was ordered by the prosecutors assigned to the case and subsequently confirmed judicially by the Justice of the Peace in and for Tonacatepeque on October 20, 2000; the Court of First Instance in and for Tonacatepeque on April 27, 2001; and the Second Trial Court on June 22, 2001. The ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 7, 2001, decided likewise in rejecting the habeas corpuspetition filed. 3. Alleged violations of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection 41. With respect to the arguments concerning alleged violations of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, the Commission notes that following his capture on October 17, 2000, José Agapito Ruano Torres, in the course of his criminal trial and in view of the alleged flaws in his defense, filed on his own behalf a series of briefs and motions in which he denounced multiple procedural irregularities,17 requested procedures, and offered evidence to demonstrate to various authorities that a judicial error had been committed in ascribing to him an identity that was not his, since the person identified as “Chopo” was someone else. 18 42. On October 5, 2001, the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador handed down a conviction against José Agapito Ruano Torres. The Commission notes that the team of public defenders did not file an ordinary appeal or a cassation appeal against the conviction. 43. On August 1, 2003, the alleged victim, on his own behalf and acting without legal counsel, filed a motion to review with the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador,19 offering to 17 The briefs were submitted by José Agapito Ruano Torres and/or Pedro Torres Hércules, builder, relative of the alleged victim and petitioner in the instant case 18 In the framework of his criminal trial, he requested: a) On June 18, 2001, that his provisional detention be reviewed and that “the act of identification and location, as well as all the other acts that arose therefrom” be declared null and void; he requested that he be granted a special hearing for review of measures, the opportunity to make a preliminary statement at a special hearing, and his liberty. The Court denied the aforesaid motions because it considered that the investigation phase had concluded and that “his defense should have made those requests at the appropriate time.” b) on September 5, 2001, he submitted a brief in which he alleged that his defender had ordered him not to present a preliminary statement and that he had harmed his interests in each of his interventions; he alleged irregularities and fraud in the line-up to which he had been submitted and said that a relative of his had offered his defense counsel precise information about the person known as “Chopo”, in spite of which, the defense counsel and, later, the judge had refused to receive the information offered. He also requested that Pedro Torres Hércules be admitted as a witness in the public hearing. In the same brief he mentioned that he had attempted previously to submit a brief to the Office of the Prosecutor, in which he had indicated that the person who answered to the aforementioned alias was willing to come forward and testify. However, the brief was refused. On September 17, 2001, the Court ruled that, with regard to "the witness testimony offered by both of the accused, this Court considers that a decision will be made as to whether to admit said evidence at an appropriate time in the proceedings.” See Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, criminal case 77-2001-2. In the framework of the habeas corpus petition presented by the alleged victim on his own behalf, he submitted briefs on January 3 and February 19, 2001, in which he alleged various counts of negligence and irregularities on the part of his defense counsel, the prosecution, and the tribunal, and requested that investigators be dispatched to ascertain the real identity of “Chopo”. On March 14, 2001, he presented a brief to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice in which he claimed procedural irregularities in connection with the lineup, the testimony of the witness who incriminated him, and the acts of torture committed at the time of his arrest. On June 8, 2001, he submitted an extended habeas corpus petition to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. On August 7, 2001, the Constitutional Chamber ruled that José Agapito Ruano Torres and two other accused should remain in custody. See Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, San Salvador, August 7, 2001. Also on record is the complaint of March 1, 2001, to the Legal Audit Department of the Prosecutor General's Office against the prosecutors assigned to the case, in addition to a complaint against the judges of the Second Trial Court in and for Tonacatepeque to the Judicial Investigation Department of the Supreme Court of Justice. The record also shows that on October 15, 2001, the alleged victim presented another communication to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, in which he stated that the person known as “Chopo” was his brother; again complained of the irregularities in the defense and the proceeding; requested an investigation of his case, and that a motion for review be arranged. 19 Article 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of El Salvador provides as follows: A review of a final conviction shall be admissible at all times and only in favor of the accused, in the following cases: 1) When the facts on which the judgment is based are incompatible with those established in the judgment or by another final criminal judgment; 2) When the challenged judgment has been founded on documentary evidence or testimony whose falsehood has been declared in a subsequent final ruling; 3) When the judgment has been delivered as a consequence of malfeasance, bribery, violence, or in an otherwise fraudulent manner, the existence of which has been declared in a subsequent final ruling; 4) When the judgment directly and patently violates a constitutional guarantee; 5) When new facts or evidence come to light after the judgment that on their own or in conjunction with those already examined in the proceeding, 8