19 that “in any event, there is a nickname based on which he has been deprived of his liberty and is being prosecuted”80 80. On March 12, 2001, Pedro Torres Hércules submitted a brief to the Attorney General of the Republic for the purpose of having the public defenders assigned to José Agapito Ruano Torres changed given that they had repeatedly refused to assist him, including during the irregular line-up.81 Mr. Torres Hercules maintains that one of the attorneys said that “if we didn’t like their work to complain to their superiors and […] to look for a private defense attorney.”82 The petitioner pointed out that although they had made several requests for a change of public defenders previously, the regional prosecutor always denied their requests.83 81. On March 14, 2001, Pedro Torres Hércules filed a brief with the Supreme Court of Justice requesting that, due to the lack of response to the writ of habeas corpus lodged with the Constitutional Chamber of that court on December 7, 2000, a hearing be scheduled with the prosecutor of the case, Mr. Rodríguez Marroquín, Francisco Amaya Villalta and a number of witnesses present.84 The purpose of this hearing would be to prove that José Agapito Ruano Torres is not Chopo and, therefore, he did not take part in the kidnapping. 82. On April 18, 2001, the prosecutor assigned to the case, following the complaint filed with the Disciplinary Inquiry Unit of the National Civil Police for the purpose of investigating the alleged mistreatment of Mr. Ruano Torres at the time of his arrest, submitted a request to the Court of First Instance in and for Tonacatepeque.85 In this brief, the prosecutor requested authorization for the transfer of José Agapito Ruano Torres to the Institute of Forensic Medicine of San Salvador on April 20, 2001, in order for him to undergo a psychological evaluation.86 The following day, the Court of First Instance in and for Tonacatepeque ruled the request out of order and put the prosecutor on notice that, “in the future, any request of such nature must be submitted at least six days before the action is to take place in order for this court to do its due diligence.”87 The case file does not indicate that any other requests were ever made in that regard. 83. On April 19, 2001, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic filed formal charges against the various individuals accused in the kidnapping of Mr. Rodríguez Marroquín, among them, José Agapito Ruano Torres.88 For its part, on April 24, 2001, public defender Emilia Castillo del Castillo filed a brief with the Examining Magistrate in and for Tonacatepeque to provide a list of witnesses and the 80 Annex 13. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted 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. 81 Annex 14. Brief of Pedro Torres Hércules submitted to the Attorney General of the Republic dated March 12, 2001. Annex to the petitioner’s communication received on December 12, 2003. 82 Annex 14. Brief of Pedro Torres Hércules submitted to the Attorney General of the Republic dated March 12, 2001. Annex to the petitioner’s communication received on December 12, 2003. 83 Annex 14. Brief of Pedro Torres Hércules submitted to the Attorney General of the Republic dated March 12, 2001. Annex to the petitioner’s communication received on December 12, 2003. 84 Annex 15. Brief of Pedro Torres Hércules submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice dated March 14, 2001. Annex to the petitioner’s communication received on December 12, 2003. 85 Annex 1. Brief dated April 18, 2001, page 420, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 86 Annex 1. Brief dated April 18, 2001, page 420, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 87 Annex 1. Brief dated April 18, 2001, page 420, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 88 Annex 1. Brief of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic dated April 19, 2001, page 427, criminal case file 77-2001-2.