9 police investigations carried out to prove that the person pointed out by said witness in its testimony was in fact Mr. Ruano Torres; and ii) the line-up identification where the victim of the kidnapping identified José Agapito Ruano Torres. In that regard, the State contends that neither of those two pieces of evidence “could be discredited during the proceedings.” 44. The State contends that each one of the judicial decisions of the various courts, which together led to the conviction of José Agapito Ruano Torres and his sentencing to 15 years in prison, was “based on the law since criminal procedure and the various legal instances established were followed.” The State alleges that there is no evidence in the record of the judicial proceeding of either the petitioner or José Agapito Ruano Torres having requested an investigation into Mr. Ruano Torres being mistakenly attributed the nickname Chopo. Furthermore, the State contends that the motions lodged on behalf of Mr. Ruano Torres were resolved within established deadlines and that the allegation made by the petitioner that some of the decisions lacked sufficient grounds was presented only because the decisions “went against his interests.” 45. Also, within the framework of the criminal proceedings, the State argues that José Agapito Ruano Torres could have filed a motion to review, which is the legal recourse to seek relief for the alleged violations. But, the State argues, Mr. Ruano Torres never invoked the remedy. To the contrary, the State contends that all Mr. Ruano Torres did “was to complain and denounce the judges and magistrates without making use of the mechanisms available within the proceedings.” By the same token, the State notes that Mr. Ruano Torres had the additional opportunity to file an ordinary appeal and a cassation appeal to challenge his detention, the line-up identification or any other actions. However, the State contends that Mr. Ruano Torres “opted to abandon standard procedure which was available to him as the suitable jurisdiction.” The State also pointed out that the alleged victim could have sought relief by lodging a motion for amparo with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice but he did not do so. 46. On the other hand, the State makes reference to the denial of the motion to review lodged by the petitioner after the conviction was handed down indicating that the motion had been declared inadmissible because the evidence in support of his guilt was considered compelling. By the same toke, the State alludes to the petition for habeas corpus lodged by the alleged victim, and says that the unfavorable ruling of the Constitutional Chamber on August 7, 2001, was based on the fact that in the course of the investigation evidence had been found of his participation in the commission of the crime. The State also points out that the ruling responded to each of the alleged violations denounced by the petitioner. In the resolution of that petition, the State points out, it was also determined that i) contrary to the allegations, the judicial decisions by which the accused was ordered held in pre-trial detention were not unwarranted; ii) the arrest of José Agapito Ruano Torres was carried out after he had been identified; y iii) his physical integrity had not been violated given that the use of force by the agents was necessary and commensurate to the resistance offered by the detainee. 47. The State points out that based on the complaint filed by the petitioner, an internal investigation was conducted within the National Civil Police into the conduct of the police officers who had participated in the arrest of Mr. Ruano Torres. The State indicates that none of the officers was sanctioned and that some of them “had died or were no longer members of the police force.” The State also points out that the investigations requested by the alleged victim into the conduct of the judges taking part in the proceedings resulted in a finding by the Department of Investigation of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Justice that the allegations made against the officials in question “provided no evidence of probable cause to open a disciplinary inquiry.”