CAT/C/55/D/553/2013 2.23 The complainant was hospitalized for a total of just over three months at the Prince Regent Charles Hospital, from 19 March to 23 June 2010. 9 2.24 On 23 June 2010 X was ordered back to prison. While still convalescing, he was roughly pulled out of his hospital bed in the middle of the night and t aken in a taxi to the prison. After his hospital stay, he remained in poor health. In his weakened state, he could not participate in the activities organized in the prison, particularly sports . He continued to suffer from severe headaches, dizziness, impaired vision, heart palpitations and knee pain and had to make regular visits to the infirmary, where he was given only painkillers and not remedial treatment. 2.25 On 12 August 2010, the court martial sentenced the complainant to 8 years’ imprisonment for involvement in a military conspiracy. 10 The complainant lodged an appeal with the military court on 13 August 2010, claiming that, owing to his hospitalization, he had not been able to attend his trial hearings. On 21 September and 26 October 2010, he again submitted complaints about the torture he had suffered during his detention. 11 In those complaints, he stated that the court had based its conviction on confessions obtained under torture, and he supported those claims with medical evidence. 2.26 In its closing statement on 27 January 2011, the prosecution argued that the supporting medical evidence provided could not be considered an expert legal opinion and that the complainant should have requested such an expert opinion. However, the judge had never summoned a medical expert, despite the allegations of torture of which he was fully aware, and even though he was fully entitled to do so under article 97 of Act No. 1/015 of 20 July 1999 on reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.27 On 3 March 2011, the military court upheld the court martial ’s decision against X and his sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment. It found that the evidence in support of his claim that the confession was obtained under torture did not meet the legal requirements. 12 However, it did not at any point address the fact that the investigating judge should have summoned an expert pursuant to the law, or the fact that, despite the repeated requests he had made during the first days of his detention, the complainant had not been allowed to see a doctor. 2.28 On 7 March 2011, the complainant lodged an appeal against the decision with the Supreme Court. 13 On 17 March 2011, the complainant, together with the other convicted soldiers, submitted a statement of case in which he pointed out that the military court had ignored the signs of torture on his body and the related medical reports. On 24 December 2012, he was released on parole as part of a general measure to ease overcrowding in the country’s prisons. 2.29 Since his release, X’s situation has been precarious from the standpoint of both finances and personal safety. He no longer has a permanent job, as he cannot be reinstated in the army. His parents, who are farmers, provide for him as best they can with the limited means at their disposal. He recently found a short -term job as a labourer. In the first weeks following his release, he went into hiding for fear of being subjected to further physical and mental suffering. His health remains a concern, and he continues to suffer from dizziness and pains in various parts of his body. He is also still suffering from post-traumatic symptoms in the form of severe stress, for which he cannot afford treatment. __________________ 9 10 11 12 13 6/16 Idem. A copy of the decision is attached to the complaint. Statement of case attached to the complaint. Decision attached to the complaint. The applicant does not mention the outcome of this appeal. GE.15-16736