CAT/C/59/D/686/2015 2.6 On 20 August 2009, the complainant was allegedly forced to sign a statement declaring himself guilty of all the charges presented against him. On 21 August 2009, the public prosecutor agreed to have him examined by a psychiatrist. The complainant told the psychiatrist that he had pleaded guilty for fear of being subjected to further acts of torture and solitary confinement. The complainant alleges that, according to the psychiatrist’s report, he was suffering from serious psychological problems, including hallucinations caused by the isolation he had been subjected to, and she prescribed him the antipsychotic Zyprexa. The complainant claims that the psychiatrist’s report had been amended to read that the Chief of the prison’s psychiatry service had prescribed the medicine. The complainant further maintains that on 25 August 2009 he was allowed by the public prosecutor to receive visits from his lawyer and to call him. However, his lawyer only visited him during his detention at La Farera and did nothing regarding the torture he had suffered, even when the police threatened him in his presence. 2.7 The complainant asserts that on 10 July 2010 he complained about his conditions of detention and about the fact that he had not been seen by a doctor. On 11 July 2010, he was seen by a specialist. The complainant claims that the doctor withheld important information about the torture he had suffered and that his request to be examined by another doctor was never addressed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 2.8 The complainant alleges that on 23 February 2010 the Cantonal Criminal Court in Lugano convicted him to six years of imprisonment for crimes he did not commit. He considers that various irregularities took place during the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that an expert psychiatrist write a report; that report contradicted the one dated 21 August 2009. Both reports were reviewed by yet another expert, who indicated that an additional psychiatric report was necessary. However, the complainant’s lawyer refused to allow that expert to participate in the procedure. 2.9 The complainant submitted a complaint to the former Prosecutor General of Ticino alleging violations of several of his rights. He alleges that he was then taken to a secret location, where he was tortured and forced to write an appeal pleading guilty and asking for a reduction in his prison term. On 10 April 2010, he sent an application to the High Court of Cassation, in which he explained that he had submitted the appeal under torture. He also asked for a lawyer and sent another complaint about the torture to the Attorney General of Ticino. He then had a telephone conversation with the president of the High Court of Cassation, who assigned him a lawyer. 2.10 On 30 June 2010, the complainant’s lawyer submitted an appeal to the High Court of Cassation. The lawyer entered a guilty plea on his behalf and asked for a reduction in the prison term without his consent. On the same day, the lawyer decided not to represent his client anymore and informed him of his decision on 6 July 2010. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the Ticino Public Prosecutor’s Office against the lawyer and on 7 July 2010 sent a registered letter to “the higher court” rejecting the appeal that had been submitted, mentioning again the acts of torture he had been subjected to by Swiss State agents. The complainant received a letter from “the higher court”, with the public prosecutor’s observations against the appeal submitted by the lawyer, and a request for the complainant’s observations on the matter. Instead of replying to the request, on 29 July 2010 the complainant sent a certified letter to the President of “the higher court” denouncing the situation and asking for his acquittal. However, on 30 September 2010, the “higher court” took its decision based on the appeal submitted by the lawyer. In November 2010, the complainant submitted another complaint to the Prosecutor General of Ticino and to the Council of Magistrates of Ticino, but he never received a reply. 2.11 On 16 January 2011, the complainant requested information from the director of La Farera about the imprisonment regime to which he was being subjected. On 19 January 2011, he was informed that he had been placed under a special regime, in compliance with 3