CAT/C/52/D/366/2008 author was transferred to police station No. 6. However, he claims that on 15 December 2003, his parents informed the First Chamber that he did not have a suitable cell or bed, which was affecting the healing of his wounds, and that they asked for a medical examination to be ordered to check the state of the author’s wounds. This request was rejected by the Chamber. Both the Assistance Office and the author’s father reapplied for a transfer. 2.7 On 6 January 2004, the mental health unit of the Regional Hospital issued a report in which it was stated that the author had been diagnosed as suffering from psychosis, was incapable of controlling and managing his actions, and was displaying depressive symptoms and manipulative and aggressive behaviour. Given the risk that he might pose to the safety of other patients, it was suggested that he be placed in a specialist health-care institution equipped with a penitentiary unit and permanent psychiatric care. 2.8 On 7 January 2004, the First Chamber applied to the government of Chubut province for a place in an appropriate detention facility for the author. On 20 January 2004, the Prison Service concluded that it was unnecessary to transfer the author to a specialist centre since he had been discharged from the mental health unit of the Regional Hospital, was continuing to receive the recommended medication and could have check-ups as an outpatient. 2.9 On 17 March 2004, the Criminal Unit of the Police informed the Public Prosecution Service that the expert’s report on the object found in the author’s cell, with which he had allegedly injured himself, did not provide any information that might be useful to the investigation. 2.10 On 23 March 2004, a forensic doctor informed the Public Prosecution Service that the nature of the author’s injuries was such that they could have been self-inflicted and caused by the object found in his cell, and that the author had a psychotic disorder that could cause him to be aggressive and dangerous, both to himself and to others. 2.11 On 15 April 2004, the Chief Prosecutor of Comodoro Rivadavia judicial district ordered the case initiated by the complaint of the author’s father to be closed, on the grounds that no evidence of an offence had been found. In his decision, the Prosecutor referred to the testimonies received from other detainees who were being held in adjacent cells and from third parties from outside the police force, including members of the fire brigade. He noted that, according to the reports of the forensic medical team, which in turn had taken into account the author’s medical history, including the reports of the psychiatric unit of the Regional Hospital, and in view of the author’s psychological and aggressive condition, he could have deliberately caused severe injuries to himself. Furthermore, the Prosecutor pointed out that the author had claimed to have been attacked by five or six police officers whom he knew by sight but had been unable to identify them or describe any of their physical characteristics. This did not seem credible, especially since they were supposedly police officers who had been on duty at the place of detention for some time. 2.12 Between February and June 2004, the author’s father reported to the First Chamber on the author’s conditions of detention on several occasions and repeated his request for a transfer to another prison unit. However, his requests were rejected. On 11 August 2004, the father submitted an application for habeas corpus, which was denied by the First Chamber. Subsequently, on 1 September 2004, the Assistance Office for Detainees and Convicted Prisoners applied to the First Chamber to guarantee minimum conditions of detention for the author. 2.13 On 3 September 2004, by order of the First Chamber, the author was transferred to unit No. 20 of the Borda psychiatric hospital in Buenos Aires. However, the author alleges that on 17 September 2004, the attending doctors applied to the judicial authorities for his 4 GE.14-06259