CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012 homonymous hemianopsia. However, according to the author, as of the time that the present communication was submitted, he had yet to undergo rehabilitation therapy. 2.21 On 7 December 2011, the Department of Forensic Medicine informed the Federal Criminal Court that the author’s condition was improving and that he required the use of a wheelchair, a cervical brace and the assistance of another person. It also stated that new Xrays were needed to ascertain the state of his cervical spine and that the best course of treatment was outpatient rehabilitation. The Department stated that travel to and from the hospital was necessary irrespective of where the author was detained and that an OSDE ambulance with a Federal Prison System guard on board should be used for this purpose on all occasions. 2.22 On 29 December 2011, the Federal Criminal Court again rejected the author’s application for house arrest, arguing that he would need to travel to the rehabilitation centre irrespective of where he was held; therefore, the risk inherent in such travel would not be avoided by granting house arrest. Moreover, there was no evidence that the author could be treated properly only at home or that treatment at home was the only way to avert the risks inherent in travel to the rehabilitation centre. The Federal Criminal Court took note of the report of the on-site inspection conducted by the Gendarmería Nacional at the Ezeiza Prison as part of the habeas corpus proceedings, which listed the measures taken to adapt the facilities to the author’s needs, including the installation and testing of an emergency call button and the removal of the step leading to the bathroom in the author’s cell. The Court also took note of information submitted by the Public Legal Service regarding the facilities and condition of the medical examination and rehabilitation rooms, 24-hour nursing assistance, the existence and working order of elevators and the fact that a door to the recreation yard had been adapted to the author’s needs. 2.23 On 5 January 2012, the author filed an appeal against the decision of the Federal Criminal Court with the Federal Chamber. That same day, the Deputy Director of the Ezeiza Prison hospital informed the Federal Criminal Court that physiotherapy was provided in the author’s cell, that he had regular consultations at San Juan de Dios Hospital, that he attended to his hygiene and basic needs in bed with the help of nursing staff and that, if the objective was for the author to reach a point where he would be able to attend to his daily needs on his own, the prison hospital did not have the proper infrastructure for that purpose. 2.24 On 29 June 2012, the director of the prison hospital issued another report describing the rehabilitation treatment that the author had undergone. The author alleges that the report was inaccurate and distorted the fact that the treatment provided at the prison was inadequate, that he had had only four sessions at San Juan de Dios Hospital and that he had not been provided with any visual rehabilitation therapy. Nor had he undergone neurocognitive therapy, as the purpose of the various sessions in which he had participated had been to permit the preparation of a neuro-psychological report. 2.25 On 13 July 2012, the Federal Chamber rejected the appeal but ordered the prison authorities to ensure the monitoring, care and regular assessment of the author’s health and to take any measures his condition required, especially with regard to medical treatment and access to basic sanitary facilities. The Federal Chamber found that the Federal Criminal Court had given due consideration to the author’s health issues before rejecting his application; that there was no evidence that he could be transported safely only if he were at home or that the adverse effects of such travel would be eliminated if he were granted house arrest; and that the author could not use his refusal of rehabilitation services provided by the prison or his partial cooperation with physical examinations to oblige the Court to grant his request for house arrest. The Court considered that corrective measures, including the provision of properly functioning elevators, had been taken with regard to the prison infrastructure to ensure that the author enjoyed greater mobility, comfort and access to the 6 GE.14-05593