A. The petitioner 8. The petitioner holds that José Agapito Ruano Torres was unfairly tried and convicted for the kidnapping of the owner of a bus company on August 22, 2001. He says that the conviction handed down by the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador was the result of a gross judicial error over his identity, which error was compounded by multiple violations of the rights to a fair trial and to mount a defense. 9. In that connection, the petitioner holds that the facts described in the petition began when one of the perpetrators of the aforesaid kidnapping was captured and, in a preliminary statement made at the prosecutor's office, confessed to his participation and that of other persons in the crime, saying that one of his associates had been an individual whom he knew only as “Chopo”. The petitioner claims that on the basis of the foregoing, the National Civil Police investigators had made inquiries and mistakenly concluded that the nickname belonged to José Agapito Ruano Torres, when in fact, according to the petitioner, it belonged to one of his brothers. The petitioner charges that subsequently the investigators persuaded the man who confessed to give another statement, this time of a judicial nature, in order to benefit from a plea bargain agreement, in which he identified the suspect “Chopo” as José Agapito Ruano Torres, who was 24 years old at the time of the events. The petitioner says that the entire criminal case rested on that statement. 10. The petitioner notes in the wake of the foregoing, on October 17, 2000, José Agapito Ruano Torres was captured at his residence by order of the prosecutor's office. He claims that at the time of his arrest, the alleged victim was subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the police because he refused to confess to the acts that were attributed to him. He says that on October 20, 2000, the Justice of the Peace in and for Tonacatepeque ordered that the provisional detention order on the alleged victim be maintained. 11. The petitioner says that the team of public defenders assigned to Mr. José Agapito Ruano Torres, who acted jointly to represent him and other persons accused in the trial, failed to denounce irregularities committed during the investigation. In that respect, he says that in the line-up to identify the perpetrators, the prosecutor allegedly told the victim of the kidnapping to identify José Agapito Ruano Torres as the perpetrator and that the names written down in the record of the lineup did not match the persons who actually took part in the process, 2 in spite of which the public defender reportedly did not present any motion on his behalf. The petitioner notes that on December 7, 2000, in view of the flaws in his defense, the alleged victim filed for a writ of habeas corpus, which was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on August 7, 2001, which decided that he should remain in custody. The petitioner adds that at the preliminary hearing on April 26, 2001, the Judge apparently rejected various requests made by Mr. Ruano Torres’ defense and adopted decisions to his detriment, in spite of which the defense reportedly again acted negligently, filing only motions for annulment but not a “supplementary appeal,” which allowed to the decisions to become final. 12. The petitioner says that as a result of the above, the alleged victim sought to protect his own rights by attempting various remedies in order to clear up the error that had been committed, but it seems he was not permitted to do so. In that connection, he is said to have submitted a brief to the Court on June 18, 2001, requesting an investigation of the inquiry performed by the National Civil Police; asking that investigators be sent to his zone of residence to verify that the nickname of “Chopo” did not belong to him; and mentioning that they could consult the municipal mayor in that regard. Those requests were reportedly denied because the 2 In this connection, the petitioner cites and attaches as an annex the resolution of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, which takes as attested that Mr. Ruano Torres was pointed out by the prosecutor so that the victim might identify him, and that the names that appear in the relevant record do not correspond to those of the prisoners who took part in the line-up. See Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, Case. 01-1554 Ac. 01-0214-01, June 9, 2003. 2