35 the kidnapping of Mr. Rodríguez Marroquín was his brother Rodolfo Ruano Torres, who was known as Chopo. This was in spite of the willingness of Rodolfo Ruano Torres to appear before the various judicial venues to explain that he, and not his brother, was Chopo. On the contrary, the petitioner contended that the public defense team told him that nothing could be done against the two pieces of evidence used against him, and the State did not dispute that contention. The Commission also notes that throughout the criminal proceedings, the public defense team did not question the irregularities in the evidence used against Mr. Ruano Torres, nor did it lodge any appeals against the first-instance conviction, allowing it to gain the status of a final judgment. 147. Given this situation, the Commission notes that the record contains numerous indications that Mr. Ruano Torres sought the timely exercise of his defense through all available means. He made such attempts by requesting changes to his defense team and by lodging formal complaints about the performance of his public defenders, both during the proceedings and after they had concluded. In spite of this, the State did not provide a prompt response to the change requests, nor did it conduct a disciplinary investigation into the allegations made by Mr. Ruano Torres. The Commission notes that the report of the Salvadoran Ombudsman for Human Rights finds that because of the failures described, Mr. Ruano Torres’s public defense was not effective and did, in fact, affect his right of defense. The Commission believes that it has sufficient evidence to conclude that the deficient performance of the public defenders played an essential role in Mr. Ruano Torres’s conviction. 148. In consideration of all the foregoing, the Commission finds that the State of El Salvador did violate the right of defense established in Article 8.2.d of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Mr. José Agapito Ruano Torres. 3. The remedies filed in connection with the criminal trial 149. The Court has ruled that in order for a state to be in compliance with Article 25.1 of the Convention, it is not enough for remedies to exist formally: they must also be effective.185 That means that people must be afforded the real possibility of filing a simple and prompt remedy that will allow them, if appropriate, to secure the judicial protection needed.186 The Court has repeatedly stated that the existence of that guarantee “is one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society within the meaning of the Convention.”187 150. In the case at hand, following José Agapito Ruano Torres’s arrest on October 17, 2000, both he and the petitioner, during the criminal proceedings, filed a series of briefs with the different judicial agencies, reporting numerous procedural irregularities, requesting formalities, and offering evidence. All this was intended to establish that the two pieces of evidence used had been obtained irregularly and that Mr. Ruano Torres was not the person identified as the suspect. None of the remedies took into consideration the violations of due process described in this report. 185 I/A Court H. R., Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 27, 2003, Series C No. 103, para. 117; I/A Court H. R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C No. 99, para. 121. 186 I/A Court H. R., The “Panel Blanca” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Judgment of March 8, 1998, Series C No. 37, para. 164; I/A Court H. R., Case of Cesti Hurtado v. Peru, Judgment of September 29, 1999, Series C No. 56, para. 125; and I/A Court H. R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Judgment of August 31, 2001, Series C No. 79, para. 114. 187 I/A Court H. R., Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, Judgment of November 27, 1998, Series C No. 42, para. 169; I/A Court H. R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment of July 26, 1987, Series C No. 1, para. 91; I/A Court H. R., Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 2, para. 90.