20 evidence to be presented at the preliminary hearing before the Court of First Instance in and for Tonacatepeque. That document stated that the witnesses would help corroborate that José Agapito Ruano Torres is not Chopo.89 At the same time, the defense attached a series of documents claiming that Agapito Ruano Torres was working at a school on the date and time that the kidnapping of Mr. Rodríguez Marroquín took place.90 The case file contains a brief in which a teacher at an educational institution in Guazapa states that José Agapito Ruano Torres worked at that location from August 8 until October 16, 2000, from 7:00am until 7:00pm.91 During the preliminary hearing on April 26, 2001, the judge ruled that evidence inadmissible “since that is not essential evidence.”92 In an interview conducted by the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, the judge of that court stated that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was not admissible because “it was untimely.”93 84. At that same hearing, José Agapito Ruano Torres stated that he was not Chopo and that “the police agents […] threatened him with death, dragged him around and that’s how they implicated him in the kidnapping.”94 The Court of First Instance in and for Tonacatepeque ordered the opening of proceedings against José Agapito Ruano Torres without ruling on his statement.95 Likewise, the court also ordered the opening of proceedings against the other individuals accused in the case: José León Pérez Alvarado, José Orellana, José Dolores Ruano, Francisco Mejía, Ricardo Antonio Figueroa, Toribio Chiquillo Rodríguez, Joaquín Rodríguez and Miguel Ángel Guzmán. Likewise, the court ordered that Samuel Hernández Ramírez and Edenilson Montenegro be separated from the proceedings because they were absent.96 85. On June 8, 2001, Pedro Torres Hércules lodged a new extended habeas corpus petition with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.97 He stated that, to date, the court had not ruled on the matter and reiterated the omissions and errors committed by the police agents in identifying José Agapito Ruano Torres as Chopo, the acts of torture and mistreatment inflicted upon him during his arrest and the fraud committed during the line-up. 86. On June 18, 2001, José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted a brief to the Second Trial Court requesting a special review hearing.98 In that regard, Mr. Ruano Torres indicated that the police agents who identified him as Chopo did so based only on the information provided by one person. It was for that reason that he requested that investigators be sent to his area of residence in order to verify that the nickname Chopo did not apply to him and that they could even inquire with the Mayor in that regard. Mr. Ruano Torres stated that there were documents available to prove that he was working at a 89 Annex 1. Brief of Emilia Castillo del Castillo, dated April 24, 2001, page 455, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 90 Annex 1. Brief of Emilia Castillo del Castillo, dated April 24, 2001, page 455, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 91 Annex 1. Brief dated October 19, 2000, page 316, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 92 Annex 1. Record of Preliminary Hearing dated April 26, 2001, page 472, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 93 Annex 1. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, case file 01-1554 Ac. 01-0214-01, dated June 9, 2003, page 697, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 94 Annex 1. Record of Preliminary Hearing dated April 26, 2001, page 471, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 95 Annex 1. Record of Preliminary Hearing dated April 26, 2001, page 472, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 96 Annex 1. Record of Preliminary Hearing dated April 26, 2001, page 473, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 97 Annex 16. Brief of Pedro Torres Hercules submitted to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated June 8, 2001. Annex to the petitioner’s communication received on December 12, 2003. 98 Annex 1. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres dated June 18, 2003, page 522, criminal case file 77-2001-2