CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012 accident, with a plate. On 28 January 2010, the author suffered a stroke which resulted in left homonymous hemianopsia, a sensory balance disorder, a cognitive disorder and impaired visuospatial orientation. In addition, the author alleges that the plate was incorrectly inserted during the spinal surgery and subsequently became lodged, unattached, against his oesophagus. 2.2 Later, with the authorization of the Federal Criminal Court, the author was transferred to the FLENI Institute in Escobar, where his condition was stabilized and he began an inpatient rehabilitation programme. 2.3 On 7 April 2010, the Federal Criminal Court was informed by the FLENI Institute that the author was fit to continue his rehabilitation programme as a day patient. On the same date, the author applied to have his pretrial detention converted to house arrest, pursuant to article 10 of the Criminal Code and articles 32 and 33 of Act No. 24.660 as amended by Act No. 26.472. The author contended that he continued to need daily rehabilitation treatment on a day-patient basis similar to that which he had been receiving since his stroke; that he needed a living space adapted to his disability; and that the distance between the detention centre and the rehabilitation hospital should be taken into consideration. The distance between his previous detention centre and the hospital would, in practice, impede his access to rehabilitation, thereby infringing his right to medical care. Accordingly, he claimed that house arrest was the mode of detention most compatible with his treatment, since at home he had a trusted person to help him with daily tasks, facilities adapted to his disability and easy access to the FLENI Institute where he could undergo rehabilitation. 2.4 On 9 June 2010, two doctors of the Supreme Court Department of Forensic Medicine examined the author at the request of the Federal Criminal Court. According to the Department, the treatment provided by the FLENI Institute was appropriate; the author required assistance from others; while it was not possible to provide full treatment in a prison setting, the private Buenos Aires Institute of Neuroscience was a viable option; and since travel between prisons and the treatment centre could have a detrimental effect owing to the distance involved, the patient would require mobile units and/or special ambulances. 2.5 On 22 July 2010, Evaluation Board No. 3 of the National Rehabilitation Service issued a disability certificate to the author, as provided for by Act No. 22.431, which stated that he required the assistance of others. 2.6 On 6 August 2010, the Federal Court rejected the author’s application for house arrest and ordered his transfer to the central prison hospital of the Buenos Aires Federal Penitentiary Complex, where the necessary arrangements would be made for the author to undergo the prescribed rehabilitation therapy from that location. The Federal Criminal Court maintained that the author’s pretrial detention did not prevent him from undergoing appropriate rehabilitation therapy. 2.7 Early on the morning of 14 August 2010, the author was transferred to Vélez Sarsfield Hospital and was eventually admitted to the Anchorena Clinic. He also submitted an application for a review of the Federal Criminal Court decision of 6 August 2010. 2.8 On 17 August 2010, the Federal Criminal Court received a report from the Department of Forensic Medicine, which had examined the author during his detention at the Buenos Aires Federal Penitentiary Complex, stating that a clinical neurosurgical assessment was urgently needed and that the prison hospital “does not have the infrastructure the patient requires [… and] although there is no immediate risk of death, remaining in current detention conditions where he cannot get the check-ups or treatments he needs (feeding support and psychiatric treatment) would severely compromise his clinical status and could endanger his life”. On the same date, the doctor affiliated with his GE.14-05593 3