23 José Agapito Ruano Torres working at the school while the kidnapping was taking place, the court ruled that “those circumstances have not been corroborated by any other evidentiary sources; […] it is relatives and friends.”118 93. On October 23, 2001, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman submitted a complaint regarding the lack of participation of some witnesses during the public hearing despite having been cited with regard to the case of José Agapito Ruano Torres, Joaquín Rodríguez Marroquín, José Dolores Ruano López, Francisco Mejía Pérez, José León Pérez Alvarado, Ricardo Figueroa and Miguel Ángel Guzmán.119 With regard to the situation of Mr. Ruano Torres, the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador indicated that the testimony of Eleazar Antonio Alemán, Roberto Ruano Torres, José and Ana Marlene Orellana Barrera, and Nublas and Miguel Antonio Torres had already been admitted during the preliminary hearing.120 Furthermore, the Court pointed out that José Agapito Ruano Torres’s own defense “stated that it would not use the testimony of the witness Leonel Alcides Orellana.”121 94. The documentation in the case file makes evident that the public defense of José Agapito Ruano Torres did not file any motions for appeal, cassation appeal or review of the conviction. In a brief to the National Coordinator of the Office of Public Defenders the public defense argued that that the motion to review was not in order because, among other reasons, “[there] was no direct or manifest violation of constitutional guarantees.”122 The defense added that the filing of this motion could be attempted only if Rodolfo Ruano Torres “made a sworn statement that it was he and not his brother […] who took part in the kidnapping.”123 95. On October 16, 2001, after the Supreme Court of Justice had ruled inadmissible the motions for cassation appeal filed on behalf of other convicted persons,124 the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador requested that the guilty judgment against José Agapito Ruano Torres and the other accused be declared final.125 96. On April 4, 2002, José Agapito Ruano Torres’s brother, Rodolfo Ruano Torres, stated before the Human Rights Commission of El Salvador “I’ve been known as Chopo since I was a little child because that’s what my family always called me.”126 He stated that, i) he tried to make a statement at the 118 Annex 1. Judgment of the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, dated October 5, 2001, page 590, criminal case file 77-2001- 2. 119 Annex 1. Notification of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman with regard to the complaint submitted by the witness Juana Antonia Henríquez de Guzmán, dated October 23, 2001, page 621, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 120 Annex 1. Brief of the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, dated October 25, 2001, page 625, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 121 Annex 1. Brief of the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, dated October 25, 2001, page 625, criminal case file 77-2001-2. 122 Annex 17. Brief of attorney Mario Chávez Corvera and attorney Soraya Melani Contreras de Escalante, submitted to the National Coordinator of the Office of Public Defenders, dated March 19, 2002. Annex to the petitioner’s communication received on December 12, 2003. 123 Annex 17. Brief of attorney Mario Chávez Corvera and of attorney Soraya Melani Contreras de Escalante, submitted to the National Coordinator of the Office of Public Defenders, dated March 19, 2002. Annex to the petitioner’s communication received on December 12, 2003. 124 The case file contains the motions for cassation appeal on behalf of Miguel Guzmán Mazariego, José Orellana Pérez, José León Pérez, Joaquín Rodríguez and Ricardo Antonio Figueroa. 125 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- 126 Annex 18. Brief of the Human Rights Commission of El Salvador, dated April 4, 2002. Annex to the petitioner’s brief dated April 2001-2. 11, 2007.