31 125. The Commission notes that in addition to the lack of clarity regarding the steps taken by the authorities in charge of the initial investigation, there are numerous elements, as of that time and throughout the proceedings, that cast doubts on Mr. José Agapito Ruano Torres being Chopo. 126. It is not the task of the Commission to assess the effect of those doubts on the judgments made by the domestic authorities in the course of the investigation and criminal trial. The analysis required of the Commission has to do with how the State responded to them in order to ensure that the investigation and criminal trial were not in breach of the presumption of innocence. That is the analysis the Commission will conduct of the different stages in the investigation and criminal trial. 127. Among the elements of doubt regarding the identification of Mr. José Agapito Ruano Torres as Chopo in the first stages of the investigation, the Commission notes the following: (i) there is a considerable difference between the height indicated by Francisco Amaya Villalta in his extrajudicial statement and that set down on José Agapito Ruano Torres’s ID card; (ii) the addresses do not agree; (iii) Mr. Ruano Torres himself stated that, when he was arrested and asked whether he was Chopo, he said that it was an alias used by his brother, Rodolfo Ruano Torres, and that another of the defendants told a police officer that Mr. Ruano Torres was not Chopo. Despite this uncertainty, the case file does not indicate that the police officers or the prosecution service took any steps to confirm, at this preliminary stage, that Mr. Ruano Torres was known by the alias in question. 128. In addition to the early stages in the investigation, the Commission has established that during the proceedings a series of briefs were filed reaffirming that Mr. José Agapito Ruano Torres was not Chopo and that it was his brother, Rodolfo Ruano Torres, who was known by that alias. The Commission notes that these filings included offers of evidence specifically intended to demonstrate the alleged error committed during the initial identification. Some of this evidence was rejected, while the elements that were examined were not assessed or included in the arguments of the corresponding decisions. The Commission notes that Rodolfo Ruano Torres admitted his involvement in the kidnapping and attempted to appear before several venues. His requests were repeatedly denied. 129. To summarize, Mr. José Agapito Ruano Torres was convicted without the police, the investigators, or the judicial authorities took the minimum steps to address the doubts existing regarding the identity of Chopo. Thus, this situation constitutes a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence. 1.2 The evidence used to convict Mr. Ruano Torres 130. Prior to examining this point the Commission again states that it is the domestic authorities – and, in cases such as this, the criminal judges – who are responsible for appraising the evidence contained in a criminal case file and its implications in determining the corresponding responsibilities. However, an analysis of whether the State failed to observe the principle of presumption of innocence may require an examination of the evidence available to the domestic judicial authorities. This is a different exercise to the one carried out by the criminal judges and is intended exclusively to determine whether, in discharging their duties, they failed to observe the minimum safeguards required by the principle of presumption of innocence. 131. Thus, the conviction of October 5, 2001, and the State’s contentions during the proceedings before the Commission indicate that the court’s decision was based on two pieces of