18 in his kidnapping without mentioning any names.70 In a statement given at the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, José Agapito Ruano Torres stated that the penitentiary authorities at the center where he was being held asked him to pick four persons to go with him to the line-up. However, he stated that the names listed in the record of the line-up were not the names of the persons who actually took part in that process.71 He also argued that, contrary to what usually takes place in line-ups, those who were part of the line-up were not allowed to pick their own numbers. Quite the contrary, Mr. Ruano Torres points out that he was assigned a number and, furthermore, even before all the individuals were lined-up he was called for interrogation.72 77. In that regard, there were statements made by i) Miguel Cerritos Ríos who stated that, although his name was in one of the records of the line-up, he never took part in it,73; and ii) Maximino Díaz Ayala, who stated that his name was not listed in the record of the line-up although he had participated in it, and also said that when “they were lining up, he observed that the prosecutor in the case pointed with his finger” toward José Agapito Ruano Torres.74 78. José Agapito Ruano Torres requested the change of public defenders which, after a petition was filed on March 16, 2001,75 resulted in the assignment of Emilia Castillo del Castillo as his public defender.76 However, Mr. Ruano Torres said that the new public defender refused to challenge the lineup identification because “it would be damaging to her colleague Corvera and […] in any event, nothing could be done at that point and that the challenge should have been filed right away.”77 79. On the other hand, in the writ of habeas corpus lodged with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on February 19, 2001, José Agapito Ruano Torres requested a new extension of the writ indicating that he was in jail due to a judicial error based on his identity.78 On that basis, he requested that an investigator be sent to the area where he resided to verify that it is his brother Rodolfo who is referred to as Chopo and not him. Furthermore, Mr. Ruano Torres maintained that the case file should be reviewed to confirm that Francisco Amaya Villalta only knew one of the persons implicated in the kidnapping as Chopo, a nickname that doesn’t belong to him.79 Moreover, Mr. Ruano Torres pointed out that even the Court of First Instance in and for Tonacatepeque, when asked about this situation, stated 70 Annex 1. Interrogation prior to the line-up dated January 1, 2001, page 377, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 71 Annex 1. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman dated June 9, 2003, page 695, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 72 Annex 1. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted to the Second Trial Court Judge dated September 6, 2000, page 547, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 73 Annex 1. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, case file 01-1554 Ac. 01-0214-01, dated June 9, 003, page 697, criminal case file 77-2001-2; and Statement of Maximino Díaz Ayala, dated July 22, 2001. Annex to the petitioner’s communication of December 12, 2003. 74 Annex 1. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, case file 01-1554 Ac. 01-0214-01, dated June 9, 2003, page 698, criminal case file 77-2001-2; and Written communication of José Agapito Ruano Torres to the Second Trial Court Judge dated September 6, 2000, page 547, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 75 Annex 1. Brief of the Court of First Instance in and for Tonacatepeque, dated March 19, 2001, page 409, criminal case file 77-2001- 76 Annex 1. Brief of March 16, 2001, page 408, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 77 Annex 1. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres to the Second Trial Court Judge dated September 6, 2000, page 548, criminal case file 2. 77-2001-2. 78 Annex 13. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice dated February 19, 2001. Annex to the petitioner’s communication received on December 12, 2003. 79 Annex 13. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice February 19, 2001. Annex to the petitioner’s communication received on December 12, 2003.