24 Prosecutor’s office, at the Office of the Attorney General and during the trial “but they didn’t want to listen to me;” ii) that he was forced by a police agent to take part in the kidnapping of Mr. Marroquín and described all the facts regarding the crime;” and iii) knows that “it is unfair what they have done with his brother, José Agapito Ruano Torres, whom they have convicted […] for a crime he never committed since he really knows how the events unfolded.”127 97. On May 13, 2002, José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted to the Chief of the Judicial Investigation Division of the Supreme Court of Justice a complaint against the Court of First Instance in and for Tonacatepeque and Second Trial Court which had participated in the criminal proceedings.128 Mr. Ruano Torres alleged that neither of the two aforementioned courts had taken any measures in his favor despite having submitted numerous briefs to them clarifying that it was his brother Rodolfo Ruano Torres who was known as Chopo and not him. He also indicated that during the public hearing, the Second Trial Court refused to allow his brother to testify as a witness. On October 22, 2003, the Office of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the complaint inadmissible because “no elements were found that would evidence probable cause to open a disciplinary inquiry.”129 98. For its part, on June 9, 2003, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman issued a resolution based on a complaint submitted by José Agapito Ruano Torres on October 15, 2001.130 In that complaint, Mr. Ruano Torres requested that a motion to review be lodged in order to reopen the judicial proceedings. Mr. Ruano Torres pointed out that first, a serious judicial error had been committed in mistaking him for his brother, Rodolfo Ruano Torres, known as Chopo and “who admits having taken part in the facts.”131 Second, Mr. Ruano Torres pointed out that he was not allowed to make a statement at the beginning of the pre-trial hearing even though he was willing to do so. Third, he stated that the Court denied his request to have his brother, Rodolfo Ruano Torres, known as Chopo, testify at the hearing although he was willing to do so. Fourth, Mr. Ruano Torres said that the Second Trial Court did not give weight to the testimonial and documentary evidence submitted. He further stated that the other persons convicted in the kidnapping admitted that he had not taken part in the crime but, rather, that it had been his brother, Rodolfo Ruano Torres, known as Chopo who had participated in the act.132 99. In its resolution, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman established the violation of due process to the detriment of José Agapito Ruano Torres.133 The resolution also recommended to the Office of the Public Defender of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic that, given the irregularities in the proceedings, jointly endorsed by omission of the various judges, prosecutors and 127 Annex 18. Brief of the Human Rights Commission of El Salvador, dated April 4, 2002. Annex to the petitioner’s brief dated April 11, 2007. 128 Annex 19. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres 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. 129 Annex 20. Brief of the Office of the Presidency of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated October 22, 2003. Annex to the petitioner’s communication received on December 12, 2003. 130 Annex 21. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated October 15, 2001. Annex to the petitioner’s brief dated December 12, 2003. 131 Annex 21. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated October 15, 2001. Annex to the petitioner’s brief dated December 12, 2003. 132 Annex 21. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres submitted to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated October 15, 2001. Annex to the petitioner’s brief dated December 12, 2003. 133 2001-2. Annex 1. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, case file 01-1554 Ac. 01-0214-01, June 9, 2003, page 694, criminal case file 77-