6 27. Faced with that situation, the petitioner alleges that on August 11 and on September 22,2003, Mr. Ruano Torres filed on his own behalf with the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, motions to review the conviction and offered as witnesses i) his brother, Rodolfo Ruano Torres, also known as Chopo and who is willing to testify to taking part in the kidnapping, and ii) Toribio Chiquillo Rodríguez, who stated that both he and Rodolfo Ruano Torres, also known as Chopo, took part in the kidnapping. The petitioner states that the two motions were ruled inadmissible on August 13 and on September 29, 2003, respectively. The petitioner points out that with regard to the first motion, the Second Trial Court determined that the constitutional guarantees of the convicted man had not been violated and that the second motion reiterated the first. 28. The petitioner also reports that the above mentioned situation was brought to the attention of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman which issued a report indicating that i) there is no certainty as to the manner in which the investigators identified José Agapito Ruano Torres; ii) his identification in a line-up was tainted; iii) his right to due process was violated and that there was also judicial error involved. The petitioner states that the report recommended that the Office of the Public Defender of the Attorney General’s Office seek a review of José Agapito Ruano Torres’s conviction “bearing in mind the irregularities in the process jointly endorsed by omission of the various participants in the proceedings (judges, prosecutors, public defenders and private parties).” The petitioner alleges that no action was taken in that regard. 29. The petitioner states that on November 22, 2006, José Agapito Ruano Torres filed a new motion to review with the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, using the same arguments and evidence previously submitted. The petitioner points out that the court found the motion groundless the very next day. In the petitioner’s opinion, when testimonial evidence is presented, such as that of Rodolfo Ruano Torres and of Toribio Chiquillo Rodríguez, a public hearing should have been scheduled. But, the petitioner says, a hearing was never scheduled. In addition, the petitioner says that on December 1, 2008, in response to a request filed, the Second Trial Court decided not to make the case file available because “only the parties involved in the proceedings could have access to it.” 30. The petitioner points out that with regard to Mr. Ruano Torres’s confinement in a penitentiary for over twelve years, he was offered transfer to another jail where conditions were not favorable. The petitioner also contends that the social readaptation and reform programs implemented have been a constant grief for Mr. Ruano Torres. Furthermore, the petitioner states that Mr. Ruano Torres’s life had been put in danger due to mutinies and gang fights in the penitentiary, especially one that occurred on January 5, 2007, where police officers killed more than 20 inmates. 31. The petitioner contends that although penitentiary authorities authorized Mr. Ruano Torres to work in janitorial and construction projects, they refused to pay him what they had agreed to. The petitioner says that in order to report this situation, Mr. Ruano Torres “went to the Ministry of Labor in person and [w]as told that, given his status as an inmate, [José Agapito Ruano Torres] had lost his rights as a citizen the moment he was convicted.” 32. He reports that after requests for parole on behalf of Mr. Ruano were denied on September 24, 2009, and February 23, 2012, parole was finally granted on May 9, 2013. José Agapito Ruano Torres himself stated that during the judicial hearing that ordered his release, the Prosecution Service “insist[ed] that he [should] remain incarcerated.”