25 public defenders, to pursue a review of the judgment against him..134 Based on the information provided by both parties, there is no evidence that the Office of the Public Defenders of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic ever pursued a review of the judgment against Mr. Ruano Torres. 100. With regard to the evidence provided before trial by Francisco Amaya Villalta, the resolution issued by the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman established that i) his real name was Ricardo Flores Amaya, a fact that was never investigated; and ii) the principle that both parties must be heard was violated given that the accused never had the opportunity to rebut what he said. 135 Furthermore, the resolution pointed out that there was no evidence that any inquiry was conducted to ascertain that the nickname Chopo belonged to José Agapito Ruano Torres which created a situation of legal insecurity. With regard to the line-up in which José Agapito Ruano Torres took part, the resolution pointed out that the principle of due process was violated because of the numerous irregularities in that process. 101. Likewise, in the resolution, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman maintained that the fact that Mr. Ruano Torres had been exposed to the communications media before the line-up took place, tainted this means to produce evidence and violated the right to the presumption of innocence. With regard to the various participants in the proceedings to prosecute Mr. Ruano Torres, the resolution pointed out that i) his public defense harmed his position by not promoting the investigation of his case and by not recognizing the various irregularities in the proceeding; ii) the prosecutors’ performance violated the principles of promoting investigations on their own initiative, impartiality and objectivity; and iii) the Magistrate’s Court in Tonacatepeque ignored all the irregularities that had taken place up until it heard the case.136 102. On August 1, 2003, José Agapito Ruano Torres, on his own behalf and without legal counsel, filed an extraordinary motion to review137 with the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador.138 In that motion, Mr. Ruano Torres pointed out that his attorney had not allowed him to make a statement during the beginning of the public hearing and that he had offered to have his brother 134 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- 135 Annex 1. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, case file 01-1554 Ac. 01-0214-01, June 9, 2003, page 696, criminal case file 77- 136 Annex 1. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, case file 01-1554 Ac. 01-0214-01, June 9, 2003, pager 696, criminal case file 2001-2. 2001-2. 77-2001-2. 137 Article 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of El Salvador establishes that: A review of final judgment shall be admissible at all times and only in favor of the accused in the following circumstances: 1) When the facts on which the judgment is based are incompatible with those established in the judgment or by another final criminal judgment. 2) When the challenged judgment has been challenged on documentary evidence or testimony whose falsehood has been declared in a subsequent final decision. 3) When the judgment has been delivered as a result of malfeasance, bribery, violence, or in an otherwise fraudulent manner whose existence has been declared in a subsequent final ruling... 4) When the judgment violently and patently violates a constitutional guarantee. 5) When new facts or evidence come to light after the judgment that on their own or in conjunction with those already examined in the proceeding , show that the act did not exist , that the accused did not commit it, or that the act committed is not punishable. 6) When a more favorable criminal law is applicable. 138 Annex 1. Brief of José Agapito Ruano Torres, dated August 1, 2003, page 712, criminal case file 77-2001-2.