CAT/C/52/D/366/2008 personality disorder”. The report also indicated that: “The possibility of the mutilation being self-inflicted by the patient, as the result of an act brought about by a psychotic state, should be categorically ruled out since the patient currently presents none of the indicative signs of such a pathology, which is incurable, and although this might suggest a case of schizophrenia in remission, there should have been disruptive episodes and non-symbolized events in his past”. In addition, the report indicates that the author required psychological care and psychiatric medication, given the risk of depression-related suicide, as well as hormone treatment, under the supervision of an endocrinologist. 2.21 In the light of the medical report, in December 2007 the author asked the First Chamber either to release him or, alternatively, to place him under house arrest. On 26 December 2007, the First Chamber declared the author’s request to be inadmissible. In addition, the Chamber asked the prison authorities to organize an urgent interdisciplinary assessment of the author’s mental state of health and its development with a view to considering the possibility of his being moved up, on an exceptional basis, to the probationary stage of the four-stage prison programme leading to release. In February 2008, the author filed an appeal in cassation with the High Court of Chubut against the decision of the First Chamber. 2.22 The author alleges that on 7 August 2008, his sister was intercepted by unknown persons who forced her to enter a car, jabbed her in the left hand, and then threw her out onto the street. The author’s mother filed a complaint about the incident with the Public Prosecution Service of Chubut province, but the complaint was dismissed. The author alleges that his sister was subjected to reprisals on account of the complaints he and his father were making in relation to his case. 2.23 On 27 April 2009, the First Chamber ordered that the author be moved onto the probationary stage of the four-stage prison programme, allowing him a monthly temporary release of 72 hours. The author was released on parole on 19 August 2009. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that he is the victim of violations by the State party of his rights under articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention.2 3.2 The author maintains that while being held at Comodoro Rivadavia local police station No. 2 he was subjected to constant ill-treatment by the police on duty in the detention centre and that on 17 November 2003 he was subjected to acts of violence and torture, during which he suffered a bilateral testicular ablation and other injuries to the neck area. Although a complaint was lodged with the Public Prosecution Service in respect of these acts, there was no effective and impartial investigation. As a result, the complaint was arbitrarily dismissed and his aggressors were not punished. 3.3 The traumatic events to which he was subjected and their after-effects have seriously and irreparably affected his life and that of his close family members. He insists that the illtreatment that was in violation of the Convention lasted for the entire duration of his detention. Despite the complaints of torture and ill-treatment and the repeated requests by the author’s family, including an application for the case to be reopened submitted on 23 August 2006, the judicial authorities failed in their duty to investigate. Only the Office of the Attorney-General carried out general inquiries, which concluded with a refusal to reopen the case. However, no judicial authority has properly considered and examined the complaint. He also points out that the initial complaint was dismissed primarily on the basis 2 6 The Committee notes that in the complaint the author invokes these articles of the Convention without individually substantiating each of the alleged violations. GE.14-06259