CAT/C/52/D/366/2008 of medical reports that suggested he had deliberately injured himself. However, at the request of his defence counsel, he underwent a new psychological exam, the results of which contradicted and discredited the reports on the state of his mental health that had been examined by the Public Prosecution Service when it ordered his case to be dismissed. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 2 February 2009, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the complaint and requested that the Committee declare it inadmissible in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, since the author himself stated in his complaint that he had lodged a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 4.2 Furthermore, the complaint does not comply with the provisions of rule 113 (f) of the Committee’s rules of procedure (CAT/C/3/Rev.5) with respect to the prolonged period of time elapsed between the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the submission of the complaint to the Committee.3 The complaint submitted to the competent authorities concerning the alleged acts of torture and ill-treatment in the police station was dismissed by the Chief Prosecutor of Comodoro Rivadavia in April 2004. Over the next five years, the author did not lodge any complaints with an international organization. 4.3 The State party maintains that, between 2006 and 2008, the author was visited by various authorities while he was serving his sentence in Prison Unit No. 6 in Rawson, including by the Office of the Under-Secretary for Prison Affairs and the Office of the Ombudsman for the Prison System. In addition, on 7 December 2007, a visit by a psychologist selected by the author’s defence counsel was authorized in order to prepare a report on his mental health. This report recommended psychological care and psychiatric medication, which were duly provided. Furthermore, the State party asserts that the Office of the Under-Secretary for Human Rights provided assistance to the father and other family members to enable them to travel from Comodoro Rivadavia to visit the author. Complainant’s comments on the admissibility of the complaint 5.1 On 7 April 2009, the author submitted his comments on the admissibility of the complaint. 5.2 In relation to the requirement established in article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, the author explains that the complaint submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights was part of proceedings instituted by another person, Mr. I.E.T. In this connection, on 23 January 2009, the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights informed the author that in the case in hand only the facts related to Mr. I.E.T, his mother and his siblings were being considered. The Executive Secretary invited the author to submit an independent petition if he believed that his rights had been violated. The author alleges that he never submitted such a petition, and that therefore the case before the Committee has not been and is not being considered under any other international investigation or settlement procedure. 5.3 With regard to the time elapsed between the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the submission of the present complaint to the Committee, the author maintains that after his complaint of torture was shelved in 2004, he applied for various judicial remedies and submitted complaints to the competent authorities about the conditions of his detention and medical care, and about the constant transfers between different detention centres. He 3 GE.14-06259 In the version of the rules in force at the time the State party submitted its observations (CAT/C/3/Rev.4), this provision corresponded to rule 107 (f). 7