CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012 should continue with his postural and visual rehabilitation as an outpatient, for a period to be determined based on his progress. The application for house arrest was based on faulty reasoning, since, in either case, the author would need to travel to and from the rehabilitation centre. 4.8 The Federal Criminal Court requested reports on the conditions of detention from the Ezeiza Prison, which were supplemented with information from the Gendarmería Nacional and the Public Prosecution Service. Officials from these agencies had toured the site to see what conditions were like in the prison hospital, to determine the status of the rehabilitation and medical equipment in the prison, and to check whether a nurse was on duty 24 hours a day, how accessible the author’s private bathroom was, whether an elevator was available and what its operating condition was and whether a door had been adapted in order to provide access to the recreation yard. The State party claims that the purpose of the medical certificates issued by the FLENI Institute and submitted by the author on 12 and 20 November 2012 — which stressed the need for his admission to a state-of-the-art centre — was to obtain approval for house arrest. 4.9 The author received the same treatment as any other person in his situation. House arrest is an exception to the general rule; it is standard practice for the courts to order that convicts serve their sentences in ordinary correctional establishments or prison hospitals, rather than to grant any unjustified privileges. 4.10 The State party requests that the Committee find the communication inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies or, in the alternative, for being manifestly illfounded. Additional information submitted by the author 5.1 The author submitted additional information to the Committee on 15 March, 24 April, 11 June, 5 August, 10 November and 17 December 2013 and on 6 March 2014. He alleges that, as of 15 March 2013, no reasonable effort had been made to accommodate his needs in the Ezeiza Prison and that he had not received the rehabilitation treatment recommended by his doctors. 5.2 On 17 April 2013, the Ezeiza Prison doctor submitted a medical report to the Federal Criminal Court which stated that the prison hospital did not have a highly sophisticated rehabilitation centre capable of providing the treatment prescribed by the author’s attending physicians at the FLENI Institute; it was therefore recommended that the author be admitted to a highly sophisticated rehabilitation facility. 5.3 The author filed an appeal with the Federal Chamber against the Federal Criminal Court’s decision of 28 December 2012 to deny his request for transfer and admission to the FLENI Institute, alleging that the measures ordered by the Federal Chamber in its decision of 13 July 2012 had not been carried out and that his health continued to deteriorate. 5.4 On 29 May 2013, the Federal Chamber upheld the author’s appeal, set aside the contested decision and ordered the Federal Criminal Court to re-examine the author’s application for admission to a health centre. The Federal Chamber took note of the Ezeiza Prison medical report of 17 April 2013 and of the Committee’s request for interim measures of 4 April 2013 and ordered the Federal Criminal Court to send a representative to the prison hospital to observe the author’s conditions of detention. 5.5 The author reiterates that, despite this judicial decision, he still has not received satisfactory treatment. In practice, it is materially impossible to obtain outpatient care because the Federal Prison Service is unable to coordinate his travel properly or to maintain the routine required for his treatment so that he can keep external medical appointments. He 10 GE.14-05593