22. The State holds that “to establish Mr. Ruano’s participation, first consideration was given to
the aforesaid preliminary investigation evidence, in addition to the enquiries that were
conducted to confirm that the person mentioned by the aforesaid witness in his statement
really was Mr. Ruano Torres, and subsequently a line-up was held in which the victim identified
José Agapito as one of the participants in his kidnapping; two factors that carried great legal
weight in determining Mr. Ruano’s participation.” The State adds that there is no record in the
proceeding that either the petitioner or José Agapito Ruano Torres requested an inquiry into
the police procedures by which it was concluded that the nickname “Chopo” belonged to the
latter.
23. The State holds that what the petitioner says with regard to the alleged pointing out of
José Agapito Ruano Torres during the line-up was untrue. In that connection, the State says
that it is noted in the record that the victim identified José Agapito Ruano Torres and that in
such procedures the accused is behind a glass through which he cannot see and, therefore, Mr
Ruano could not have seen the prosecutor allegedly tell the victim to point to him.” The State
also mentions that present at the line-up were the Judge in and for Tonacatepeque, her clerk,
the prosecutors, Public Defender Mario René Chávez Contreras, and the victim, Jaime Ernesto
Rodríguez Marroquín, and that if the theory sustained by the petitioner were true, the defender
would have requested the annulment of the procedure.
24. In reference to the physical mistreatment that the petitioner allegedly suffered in the
course of his arrest, the State says that -according to the record of the procedure carried outwhen National Civil Police agents under the supervision of the prosecutor entered the house of
José Agapito Ruano Torres, the latter resisted and, therefore, the agents were compelled to
use a level of force commensurate with the opposition put up by the detainee. The State also
says that the medical evaluation performed did not note the supposed mistreatment that the
petitioner alleges.
25. The State also refers to the refusal of the motion to review presented by the petitioner,
saying that it was declared inadmissible because the facts that supported his guilt were
considered compelling. Furthermore, the State notes that the findings of the investigations
requested by the alleged victims into the judges who were involved in the case showed, in the
opinion of the Department of Investigation of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of
Justice, that the allegations against the aforesaid officials ”offered no evidence of probable
cause to open a disciplinary inquiry.” The State says that the investigation of the police agents
produced the same results and it was determined, therefore, that no violations had been
committed against Mr. Ruano Torres.
26. The State also alludes to the habeas corpus petition presented by the alleged victim and
says that the unfavourable ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of August 7, 2001, was based
on the fact that in the course of the investigation evidence had been found of his participation
in the commission of the crime and that said ruling also responded to each of the violations
alleged by the petitioner. The State mentions that in the decision on the aforesaid petition the
following was determined: that, contrary to the allegations, the judicial decisions by which the
accused was remanded in pre-trial detention were not unwarranted; that the capture of José
Agapito Ruano Torres had been carried out after both he and the other accused persons had
been identified; and that his physical integrity had not been violated inasmuch as the force
used by the agents had been necessary and proportional in view of the resistance of the
captured man.
27. Specifically with respect to admissibility requirements, the State mentions that there were
various domestic remedies available to the accused, and yet he did not invoke them. In that
connection, the State says that although the petitioner claims a series of alleged violations in
the course of the proceeding, at no time did he take any steps to seek relief in that legal
context, “rather, all he did was complain and denounce the judges and magistrates, without
making use of the mechanisms available to him within that proceeding.” By the same token,
the State mentioned that in addition to a motion for annulment, the petitioner had the
opportunity to file an ordinary appeal and a cassation appeal; “however, he opted to abandon
the standard procedure, which was at his disposal as the suitable jurisdiction.”
5