7 33. The petitioner notes that the context in which the above mentioned actions took place was that of a time in which harsh reforms were adopted with regard to kidnapping. The petitioner says that the Salvadoran President at the time, Francisco Flores, pressured the judicial branch to “publicly repudiate and condemn kidnappings but also to effectively convict any person prosecuted for that crime.” The petitioner also notes that it was the practice of the courts to rule any motion filed by any individual accused or convicted of kidnapping groundless. In that regard, the petitioner asserts that, during that time, the National Association of Private Enterprises (ANEP) applied pressure and interfered in judicial decisions. The petitioner even contends that the lead counsel for ANEP at the time publicly stated that “what was important was for someone to be punished so others would fear the consequences regardless of whether the person punished was responsible for the crime or not.” The petitioner states that one of the public defenders confessed that “they want to hang us” since the judges themselves had told them not to provide legal counsel to those being prosecuted for kidnapping. 34. Based on the preceding, the petitioner concludes that the process to investigate and identify José Agapito Ruano Torres as possible perpetrator of a kidnapping as well as the penal proceedings followed to prosecute him were plagued by omissions and irregularities. The petitioner points out that during the criminal proceedings undertaken against José Agapito Ruano Torres, his public defenders did not allow him to testify at various stages of the trial and, despite his requests, they never took any action to confront the various illegalities perpetrated and try to prove his innocence. The petitioner says that this situation was made all the more aggravating by the fact that José Agapito’s own brother, Rodolfo Ruano Torres, wanted to testify that he was known as Chopo and that he was the one who had taken part in the kidnapping. 35. The petitioner also points out that the various courts did not take this situation into account although it had been alleged at the various stages of the proceedings. To the contrary, the petitioner states that the conviction was solely based on the illegal, tainted and fraudulent testimony of Francisco Amaya Villalta, the person kidnapped, without the existence of any other evidence or reasonable lead “to have established the link that must exist between the perpetrator of the criminal offense and the crime.” The petitioner further notes that José Agapito Ruano Torres reported the conduct of the police officers who tortured him to his public defenders, prosecutors and judges without any positive results. 36. Based on the foregoing, the petitioner claims that José Agapito Ruano Torres’s right to judicial guarantees and his right to judicial protection were violated. Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that Mr. Ruano Torres’s right to personal liberty was violated since he has been arbitrarily held for more than ten years. The petitioner argues that José Agapito Ruano Torres’s right to personal integrity was violated since he was tortured at the time of his arrest. On that basis, the petitioner requests restitution for the “physical, moral, psychological and spiritual harm” caused to José Agapito Ruano Torres, his spouse and his children. In that regard, the petitioner emphasizes that it is necessary that Mr. Ruano Torres be declared innocent in order to “ give him back his image, his honor, his reputation and his dignity,” and to direct the State to provide him the appropriate financial compensation. B. The State 37. The State holds that proceedings against Mr. Ruano Torres began based on the testimony received from one of the accomplices in the kidnapping, Francisco Amaya Villalta, who was offered a plea bargain in accordance with the provisions of domestic penal legislation. The State contends that the Office of the Attorney General has the authority to offer this procedural opportunity