CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012 measures and that, as noted in previous reports, the author should continue to receive outpatient rehabilitation treatments. 6.3 Regarding the Ezeiza Prison doctor’s report of 17 April 2013, the State party points out that the doctor in question was interviewed during the Federal Criminal Court proceedings and had said that her opinion was based solely on the recommendations of the author’s doctors at the FLENI Institute. Moreover, the Federal Criminal Court states that the medical reports issued at the time of the author’s discharge from the Institute indicated that he was fit to continue treatment as an outpatient and that neither the attending physicians at the Institute nor the officially designated experts had challenged that finding. 6.4 On the basis of information from OSDE, the Federal Criminal Court confirmed that the author had refused the rehabilitation services offered by the Geben Centre at the prison in June 2012 and had insisted on being treated on the basis of the rehabilitation programme of the FLENI Institute and at its facilities. The Federal Criminal Court took note of the assertion of the physiotherapist who treated the author in prison that the rehabilitation equipment had certain limitations but pointed out that those claims were contradicted by OSDE, which had stated, following the visit by the Geben doctor, that physiotherapy was possible at the author’s place of detention since his private doctors could practice there. Moreover, the availability of state-of-the-art equipment had been confirmed by the Special Prosecutor-General of the Human Rights Division of the Attorney-General’s Office, who had visited the prison hospital and interviewed the author on 8 May 2013. Therefore, the Federal Criminal Court concluded that the equipment for physiotherapy had been demonstrated to be available, adequate — at least in terms of basic inputs — and in good condition and working order. 6.5 Accordingly, the Federal Criminal Court concluded that, with the exception of the opinion of the Ezeiza Prison doctor, there was no medical basis or new evidence to support the author’s application. Taking note of the Committee’s request of 4 February 2013 for interim measures, the Federal Criminal Court requested that the Department of Forensic Medicine conduct a medical assessment to establish the author’s state of health, evaluate his rehabilitation treatment and determine whether he should continue to be held in the prison hospital. It also ordered that the rehabilitation services offered by OSDE should be continued; that, if the author were to refuse to use the service, a record of any such refusal should be kept and steps should be taken to make sure that his refusal reflected a free and informed decision; and that the Department of Forensic Medicine should prepare a general report on his state of health and progress on a monthly basis. 6.6 On 20 September 2013, the State party informed the Committee that the Federal Criminal Court had requested information from the San Juan de Dios rehabilitation centre, and that the centre had confirmed that the author was undergoing rehabilitation physiotherapy and psychotherapy. 6.7 On 15 November and 19 December 2013, the State party informed the Committee that, at the request of the Federal Criminal Court, on 9 October 2013 the author had undergone an expert medical examination conducted by the Department of Forensic Medicine and three medical experts designated by the parties. The report indicated that there had been no significant change in the author’s state of health. Following the ambulance accident, on 3 September 2014, the author underwent a medical examination to determine his state of health and, in particular, to ascertain if any injury had been sustained by his cervical spine or brain. This examination did not reveal any change in relation to the earlier findings. The report also states that the prison has suitable equipment for musculoskeletal rehabilitation treatments but not for the rehabilitation of patients with bipedal ambulation and balance disorders or patients in need of visual rehabilitation treatments. It therefore recommended that the author be held in the Ezeiza Prison and that a portion of his rehabilitation treatment be conducted in a hospital outside the prison. One of 12 GE.14-05593