the he could have filed an ordinary appeal and a cassation appeal. However, the alleged victim “opted to abandon standard procedure, which was at his disposal as the suitable jurisdiction.” 36. In this connection, the petitioner argues that domestic remedies were exhausted. In relation to the argument of the State that an action for amparo has yet to be attempted, the petitioner claims that the alleged victim filed for a writ of habeas corpus at the appropriate juncture in the proceeding, which was the specific remedy to resolve the violations alleged. Furthermore, with respect to the assertion that the alleged victim had failed to pursue standard remedies, the petitioner holds that this was due to the negligence of the public defender provided by the State, as a result of which José Agapito Ruano Torres himself invoked a series of remedies which he considered pertinent, including a complaint denouncing his defender for negligence, a request for his replacement, and motions for review of judgment. 37. In the instant case, the petitioner claims a series of irregularities in the trial of the alleged victim that ultimately led to a conviction, which, according to the petitioner, was founded on a judicial error. Based on the arguments advanced by the parties and the information in the record,10 the Commission offers the following observations in this respect: 1. Accusations of physical, mental, and moral mistreatment at the time of the alleged victim's arrest 38. The record shows that on December 7, 2000, José Agapito Ruano Torres filed a habeas corpus petition on his own behalf in which he charged that at the time of his arrest he had been subjected to physical, psychological, and moral mistreatment by the police. On August 7, 2001,11 the Constitutional Chamber rejected the petition with the argument that while force had been used it had not infringed José Agapito Ruano Torres’s human rights since -according to the relevant police record- it had been necessary to neutralize Mr. Ruano Torres’ resistance to his arrest. 39. The record further shows that on October 30, 2000, 12 the petitioner filed a complaint with the Disciplinary Inquiry Unit of the National Civil Police in which he alleged abuse and mistreatment committed against José Agapito Ruano Torres at the time of his arrest. On April 18, 2001 13 the prosecutor assigned to that administrative inquiry requested the judge hearing the criminal case to authorize the transfer of José Agapito Ruano Torres to the medical examiner's office in San Salvador on April 20, 2001, for a psychological evaluation to be performed on him. On April 19, 2001, the judge presiding over the case found the request to be out of order and warned the prosecutor “that henceforth any procedure of that nature be requested with at least six days notice in order for this Court to take the appropriate steps.” 14 Furthermore, at the preliminary hearing before the Court of First Instance in and for Tonacatepeque, upon being allowed to speak, Mr. José Agapito Ruano Torres said that “[…] the [police] made threats against his life, dragged him on the ground, and that was how they implicated him in the crime […].”15In addition, the resolution of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman,16 which also sets out for the record the complaint of torture and that the alleged victim made to that body, is also included in the criminal proceeding. 2. Pre-trial detention 10 In the present case, the petitioner provided various motions related to Criminal Case File 77-2001-2 in the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador. Similarly, the State provided a copy of the complete file of Case 77-2001-2 and of the habeas corpus proceedings within the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, ref. 375-2000, 403-2000 compiled and requested on behalf of José León Pérez, José Orellana Pérez and José Agapito Ruano Torres. 11 See Ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, San Salvador, August 7, 2001. There is no record of the date on which José Agapito Ruano Torres or his defense counsel were notified of the decision. 12 See brief of April 18, 2001, p. 420, criminal case 77-2001-2. 13 See brief of April 18, 2001, p. 420, criminal case 77-2001-2. 14 See brief of April 18, 2001, p. 420, criminal case 77-2001-2. 15 See Court of First Instance in and for Tonacatepeque, Preliminary Hearing, April 27, 2001 16 See Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, Case 01-1554 Ac. 01-0214-01, June 9, 2003. 7