CAT/C/52/D/366/2008 reiterates that, on 23 August 2006, he requested that his complaint of torture, which had not yet been resolved, be reopened by the Attorney-General of the Province of Chubut. 5.4 Furthermore, he alleges that he is constantly punished by the prison authorities and that he has challenged every punishment. Nonetheless, all his challenges and subsequent appeals, cassation proceedings and extraordinary appeals have been rejected. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 14 September 2010, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint and forwarded to the Committee a copy of the judicial proceedings before the First Chamber, the Public Prosecution Service of Comodoro Rivadavia and the Office of the Attorney-General of Chubut. 6.2 The State party notes that the case brought before the Public Prosecution Service of Comodoro Rivadavia in relation to the castration of the author in police station No. 2 was closed on 15 April 2004 because no evidence was found to indicate that an offence had been committed. Subsequently, in 2006, the author’s family requested that the Office of the Attorney-General of Chubut reopen the case. In response to this request, the Office commissioned officials of the Public Prosecution Service and the Trelew city police to analyse the proceedings in relation to the complaint of castration submitted by the author’s father. After studying the file and undertaking the necessary investigative measures, it was concluded that there were insufficient grounds for reopening the case. 6.3 Faced with persistent questioning about the author’s state of health and the quality of the medical reports issued, on 7 February 2008, the Office of the Attorney-General scheduled a medical examination with one of the psychiatrists suggested by the Office of the Under-Secretary for Human Rights. However, the medical assessment could not be conducted due to a lack of administrative coordination and the opposition of the author’s defence counsel. 6.4 On 5 May and 12 December 2006, representatives of the Office of the UnderSecretary for Prison Affairs, accompanied by the author’s defence counsel, and representatives of the Office of the Ombudsman for the Prison System visited the author in Prison Unit No. 6. In addition, the Office of the Under-Secretary for Human Rights contacted the social assistant at the detention centre to enquire about the author’s condition on several occasions. Additional information submitted by the author 7.1 The author submitted additional information to the Committee on 4 January and 12 December 2011, 11 May 2012 and 29 April 2013. 7.2 The author relates, inter alia, that he underwent various medical examinations between 2009 and 2010 that confirmed that he had suffered the loss of his testicles, that he might undergo surgery for aesthetic purposes, and that he needed therapeutic support to help treat mental health problems. He attaches a new psychological report, prepared by the specialist selected by his defence counsel in December 2007, who concluded that, as had been the case in 2007, he did not find any symptomatic signs of hallucinatory schizophrenic behaviour which would suggest that it was an act of self-mutilation. 7.3 The author reiterates the allegations presented in his initial submission. He asserts that at least four medical and psychological reports — the report of the Penitentiary Psychiatric Unit of the Borda hospital dated 10 September 2004, the report of the psychologist selected by his defence counsel dated 8 December 2007, the report of two psychologists from the Committee for the Protection of Health, Ethics and Human Rights dated 30 December 2009 and the report of the Psychopathology Service of the National 8 GE.14-06259