33 trafficking.175 Similarly, in the case of Luca v. Italy before the European Court of Human Rights, a person was convicted on the basis of a witness statement given during the investigation without the accused’s defense counsel being present. In that instance, the European Court found that the State had violated the right of defense and the right to the presumption of innocence in that the evidence could not be challenged by the defense and constituted a substantial portion of the evidence used to convict the victim.176 137. Thus, since Mr. Ruano Torres’s defense was not present for that statement, which has been used as a key part of the evidence in his conviction, together with the lack of judicial grounding for allowing Mr. Amaya Villalta’s plea bargain and the impossibility of questioning that evidence during the entire judicial proceedings, the Commission believes that this situation constituted an additional violation of the presumption of innocence, in addition to a breach of the right of defense. 138. Regarding the second key piece of evidence – that is, the identification made by the victim of the kidnapping during an identity parade – there are statements from three individuals, including José Agapito Ruano Torres, who contend that the formality was marred by irregularities. Those arguments involve the fact that the prosecutor pointed out Mr. Ruano Torres in order for the kidnapping victim to identify him, and that false names were recorded on the record of the procedure. The case file contains no indication that the judicial authorities assessed those factors or made any statement regarding them. According to the report issued by the office of the Salvadoran Human Rights Ombudsman, this formality was marred by the fact that Mr. Rodríguez Marroquín had seen pictures of the trial’s “suspects” in the media. The Commission notes that during the pre-trial hearing, Mr. Rodríguez Marroquín stated that prior to the identity parade, he had seen the arrested suspects “in the papers and in a video.” 139. The European Court has ruled that the evidence that is to be analyzed by the agencies of the judiciary must have been obtained in a way that is fair.177 Otherwise, if evidence that is essential for a conviction is obtained irregularly, the right of defense is undermined.178 140. Thus, in light of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the only two pieces of evidence on which Mr. José Agapito Ruano Torres’s conviction were based were marred with irregularities that affected his right of defense and presumption of innocence. Moreover, at no juncture following the time that evidence was obtained during the investigation phase did any of the judicial venues draw attention to those irregularities or rule on them. In addition, although the petitioner and Mr. Ruano Torres reported the judicial agencies’ omissions in admitting and appraising both these pieces of evidence for the conviction of Mr. Ruano Torres, those actions were neither investigated nor punished. 141. This situation is compounded by the failure to assess the witness statements and documentary evidence that indicated that Mr. Ruano Torres was at work at a school at the time of the 175 I/A Court H. R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Judgment of November 21, 2007, para. 154. 176 European Court of Human Rights, Luca v. Italy, Application No. 33354/96, Judgment of 27 February 2001, para. 40. 177 European Court of Human Rights, Van Mechelen and Others v. The Netherlands, Applications Nos. 21363/93, 21364/93, 21427/93, and 22056/93, Judgment of 18 March 1997, para. 50. 178 European Court of Human Rights, Unterpertinger v. Austria, Application No. 9120/80, Judgment of 24 November 1986, paras. 3133; Saïdi v. France, Application No. 14647/89, Judgment of 20 September 1993, paras. 43-44; and Van Mechelen and Others v. The Netherlands, Applications Nos. 21363/93, 21364/93, 21427/93, and 22056/93, Judgment of 23 April 1997, para. 55.