CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012 medical insurance provider (OSDE) issued a certificate stating that “based on a neurological assessment, the rehabilitation plan should be carried out in hospital”. 2.9 On 23 August 2010, the Office of the Prison System Ombudsman (Procuración Penitenciaria de la Nación) applied to the Federal Criminal Court for the author’s admission to the FLENI Institute for immediate treatment as a precautionary measure to be taken without delay to prevent the appearance of lesions as a result of inappropriate living arrangements. On 26 August 2010, the author was transferred to the FLENI Institute in Escobar. 2.10 On 3 November 2010, the neurosurgeon at the FLENI Institute determined that the author’s cervical spine was unstable, that he might require surgery and that regular travel by ambulance was aggravating his condition and should occur only when absolutely necessary. On 17 November 2010, another doctor from the FLENI Institute informed the Federal Criminal Court that it was not possible to provide specific, practical instructions as to how the author’s ambulance transfers should be carried out and that the Federal Criminal Court should therefore consult experts in that regard. The Federal Criminal Court requested that the Institute provide a state-of-the-art ambulance with a doctor on board and assess the author’s clinical status before every trip. 2.11 On 7 May 2011, the Ombudsman issued a report on the author’s latest medical examination which stated that he had improved but required assistance from others to perform basic day-to-day tasks. The report also said that the Federal Prison Service medical facilities lacked the infrastructure and resources needed to ensure the author’s health and rehabilitation and that it could not be guaranteed that transport from the prison to the rehabilitation clinic could take place in a manner or on a schedule that would allow him to continue his rehabilitation as an outpatient. Accordingly, the Ombudsman’s Office recommended that the author should remain at the FLENI Institute. On 17 May 2011, the FLENI Institute stated that the author continued to suffer neurological after-effects and needed to continue to receive physical, occupational, neurological, cognitive and visual rehabilitation therapy; that the author could continue his rehabilitation programme as an outpatient at a location selected jointly by the Federal Criminal Court and the medical insurance company; that the rehabilitation described above should be carried out between three and five times per week; and the author’s travel to and from the place of treatment was subject to the neurosurgeon’s recommendations. On 24 June 2011, the medical insurance provider (OSDE) gave the Federal Criminal Court a list of facilities that were equipped to meet the author’s rehabilitation needs that were both near his prison and covered by his insurance scheme. 2.12 On 26 May 2011, the author was transferred to the central prison hospital of the Ezeiza Federal Penitentiary Complex No. 1 (the Ezeiza Prison) by order of the Federal Criminal Court. The Court also ordered the Ezeiza Prison to coordinate with OSDE to conduct an assessment and arrange for prompt ongoing treatment in, if possible, a medical centre close to his place of detention. 2.13 On 27 May 2011, following the submission of an application by the defence as part of a habeas corpus proceeding, Federal Criminal and Correctional Court of First Instance No. 1 or No. 2 of Lomas de Zamora authorized the author’s transfer to the FLENI Institute because of acute physical and psychiatric decompensation. On 29 May 2011, the author was transferred to the Olivos Clinic. Between 30 May and 3 June 2011, the author was hospitalized at the Argentine Institute of Diagnosis and Treatment, where it was decided that the plate that had been fitted during his spinal surgery had to be removed, with the Institute noting that “although there is a risk of perforating the oesophagus, this could also happen if the plate were to shift. This risk obviously increases with any ill-advised movement that might occur during an improperly prepared transfer or with sudden movements”. On 2 June 2011, the Ombudsman concluded that if either outpatient or day4 GE.14-05593