21 school when the kidnapping took place.99 Those requests were rejected by the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador on grounds that the investigative phase had concluded and that “his defense should have entered those requests at the appropriate time.”100 87. On August 7, 2001, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the writ of habeas corpus lodged deciding that José Agapito Ruano Torres should remain in custody. 101 The court stated that prior to José Agapito Ruano Torres’s detention, “the identities of the accused were determined as a result of a duly conducted investigation […] based on information obtained from the general public.”102 With regard to the allegations of torture and mistreatment inflicted upon Mr. Ruano Torres during his detention, it was the opinion of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice that although there had been use of force, it had not violated his rights given that –according to the police report on the incident—this use of force “had been necessary in order to neutralize his resistance.”103 88. On September 6, 2001, José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted another brief to the Second Trial Court alleging that his public defenders had acted to his detriment at every stage in the proceedings in which they had taken part, to wit: i) preventing him from making a statement; ii) refusing to introduce information regarding the true identity of Chopo, who was his brother Rodolfo; iii) not challenging the irregularities that took place during the line-up; and iv) in general, refusing to take any action he requested in order to help prove his innocence by proving that he was not Chopo.104 He also requested that Pedro Torres Hércules, who witnessed the irregularities during the line-up and has in his possession the necessary information to prove that he is not Chopo, be added as a declaring party in his favor.105 On September 17, 2001, the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador decided that as to “the witness testimony offered […] this Court considers that a decision on the admissibility of said evidence will be made at the appropriate time in the proceedings.”106 There is no evidence in the case file of the Second Trial Court making any subsequent reference to those requests. 89. On September 24, 2001, Pedro Torres Hércules submitted a brief to the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador in which the Mayor of Guazapa emphasized José Agapito Ruano Torres’s honesty and pointed out that the nickname Chopo belonged to his brother “Rodolfo Ruano Torres, who was the person that the National Civil Police went looking for and, due to a confusion, the young man José 99 Annex 1. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres, dated June 18, 2003, page 523, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 100 Annex 1. Decision of the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador dated June 22, 2001, page 524, criminal case file criminal 77- 2001-2. 101 Annex 1. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, San Salvador, dated August 7, 2001, page 539, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 102 Annex 1. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, San Salvador, dated August 7, 2001, page 539, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 103 Annex 1. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, San Salvador, dated August 7, 2001, page 539, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 2001-2. 104 Annex 1. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres, dated September 6, 2001, page 548, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 105 Annex 1. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres, dated September 6, 2001, page 548, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 106 Annex 1. Decision of the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, dated September 17, 2001, page 551, criminal case file 77-