CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012 4.2 With regard to the events that led to the author’s imprisonment, the State party notes that the author was an officer of the Buenos Aires Provincial Police during the dictatorship of 1976–1983. On 14 April 2011, the Federal Criminal Court sentenced the author to life imprisonment and absolute, lifelong disqualification for the offences of unlawful entry, unlawful deprivation of liberated as a consequence of aggravated abuse of power, aggravated torture and doubly aggravated murder. At the time that the State party submitted its observations, the sentence was being appealed before the National Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation. The author’s conviction should be viewed within the context of the quest for remembrance, truth and justice and the associated effort to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible for serious crimes committed during the dictatorship. 4.3 The author has not exhausted all domestic remedies in connection with the complaints that he has brought before the Committee, since the avenue he chose was inappropriate for the reparation of the alleged violations. Furthermore, he alleges violations of the Convention without proof that any domestic administrative and/or legal action has been taken to seek reparation. His application for house arrest was considered by the Federal Criminal Court and the Federal Chamber and was rejected by the latter because he failed to meet the legal conditions for house arrest. The author could have lodged a special federal appeal before the Supreme Court. However, he preferred to turn directly to the Committee even while admitting that he has not exhausted all domestic remedies. Act No. 48, article 14, stipulates that one of the prerequisites for a special appeal is that the matter should be subject to federal jurisdiction, with one example being infringement of articles of the Constitution or of a treaty such as the Convention. Accordingly, the failure to lodge such an appeal means that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. The author’s allegations that proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged are groundless. In fact, he does not even mention the subsequent proceedings during which his application for house arrest was considered. Moreover, the author did not file any complaint before an Argentine court alleging unduly prolonged proceedings. His application was fully considered by the relevant courts, and due process was observed. 4.4 The author’s allegations are generic and lack specifics and have not been substantiated. The judicial authorities responded to the applications submitted by the author regarding the medical treatments that he needed and his detention and living conditions on numerous occasions. 4.5 The State party presents an account of the facts of the case and points out that the Federal Chamber rejected the author’s appeal on 13 July 2012. Nevertheless, it explicitly set out the Federal Criminal Court’s obligations: namely, that, as a matter of urgency, it should take all necessary measures regarding his medical rehabilitation and access to basic sanitary facilities in his place of detention. Pursuant to this decision, on 18 July 2012, the Federal Criminal Court ordered Ezeiza Prison to adopt a number of measures, such as the submission of monthly reports on the author’s state of health and rehabilitation and the provision of 24-hour nursing assistance. 4.6 The Federal Chamber ordered the Federal Criminal Court to conduct a new medical examination with a view to giving due consideration to the author’s application for house arrest. The Department of Forensic Medicine conducted this examination, which then served as the basis for the Federal Criminal Court’s decision of 29 December 2011 to reject the author’s application. The judicial authorities were not unreceptive to the author’s allegations; on the contrary, the Federal Chamber upheld his appeal against the Federal Criminal Court’s decision of 15 August 2011. 4.7 The State party comments on the discrepancies between the medical opinion of the Department of Forensic Medicine and the expert opinion submitted by the author during the proceedings in the nation’s courts. It points out that, according to the former, the author GE.14-05593 9