CAT/C/59/D/686/2015 decision revoking his political asylum to the Administrative Federal Court and that, on 28 February 2013, the court rejected his appeal. He has appealed that decision and is still waiting for a reply. Regarding the entry ban imposed on 4 December 2014, he asserts that he did not appeal that decision to the Administrative Federal Court on 2 February 2015, as the State party indicates, but on 10 December 2014, within the deadline. Moreover, he reiterates that he would still be at risk if returned to Turkey, as he has been convicted by a criminal court there and has been tortured several times by Turkish officers. He also mentions that his mental health has been permanently damaged owing to the torture he suffered in Turkey. 5.10 The complainant finally submits that many of the documents he had in Thorberg prison, before being transferred to La Farera on 23 June 2015, were never returned to him. Additional submissions by the State party 6.1 On 30 November 2015, the State party informed the Committee that the complainant was being transferred from Realta prison to Lugano to be heard in relation to the extension of his administrative detention. 36 On 21 January 2016, the administrative detention was renewed for six months. 6.2 On 4 February and on 3 and 17 March 2016, the State party expressed concern regarding the security risks posed by the complainant and indicated that, following a psychiatric examination conducted by a specialist, he was diagnosed as schizophrenic and placed in a specialized institution for six weeks. 6.3 On 16 September 2016, at the request of the Committee, the State party provided information regarding the periods during which the complainant was placed in solitary confinement. The State party indicates that, according to relevant legislation, 37 solitary confinement decisions can be appealed to the justice division in Belinzona, that such decisions can be appealed to the Court of Appeals (Corte dei reclami del Tribunale d’appello) and that the court’s decisions can be appealed before the Federal Tribunal. 38 The State party further indicates that the complainant only appealed two of the disciplinary decisions imposing solitary confinement on him: those of 26 April 2011 and 4 August 2011. Regarding the first decision, it was appealed by the complainant on 2 May 2011 to the justice division, which rejected the appeal on 26 July 2011. The complainant appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal, which rejected it on 31 October 2011. Both entities considered that the complainant only alleged the violation of his right to be heard and that that right had been respected, as he had been interviewed regarding the incident leading to the solitary confinement. They also considered that, although the complainant had not received the documents he had requested,39 the authorities could limit prisoners’ rights in order to guarantee the normal functioning of the prison and that the public interest of guaranteeing the pacific cohabitation in the prison justified a restriction to the complainant’s access to such documents. The complainant appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Federal Tribunal, which rejected it on 7 May 2012, as it considered that 36 37 38 39 12 The complainant is currently in administrative detention following a decision taken by the Cantonal Administrative Court of Ticino on 31 August 2015. The Ticino Rules on the Execution of Criminal Penalties, the Ticino Rules on Detention Facilities, the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure and the Law on the Federal Tribunal. The State party indicates that it committed a mistake in its previous submission, in which it stated that the complainant could have appealed the solitary confinement decisions to the Federal Tribunal regarding their constitutionality. It explains that it wrongly made reference to the old legislation on the Federal Tribunal, amended in 2007. The declarations by the other detainee involved in the fight that led to the solitary confinement.