CAT/C/52/D/366/2008 University of Córdoba dated 9 December 2010 — support the conclusion that he is suffering from a “lasting personality transformation following a very stressful experience of an extremely aggressive nature, with marked schizoid traits”, which would appear to confirm that he was treated in a way that violated his rights under the Convention. He maintains that he was improperly administered medication to prevent him from testifying against police officers in the context of his complaint of torture and ill-treatment. 7.4 In addition, he alleges that he did not receive appropriate medical treatment once he had returned to the detention centre after being discharged; that his family was either prevented or impeded from visiting him both at the Regional Hospital and in the detention centre; that he was subjected to conditions of detention that were contrary to the Convention, prolonging the violation of his rights that had begun on 17 November 2003, given that he did not have a mattress or basic hygienic facilities, such as a nearby bathroom and hot water; and that he was kept in crowded premises. 7.5 The authorities of the detention centres in which he was detained continually subjected him to arbitrary punishments, including temporary isolation, without informing him of the reasons for the punishments. What is more, he did not have an opportunity to exercise his right to a defence against these punishments. 7.6 The author’s close family members were also the victims of treatment that was contrary to the Convention since they received death threats and were subjected to humiliating body searches every time they came to visit him at the detention centre. 7.7 The author maintains that the State party must adopt comprehensive reparation measures in order to guarantee his right to health, including the necessary surgery and psychological treatment; properly and effectively investigate the events of November 2003 and punish those responsible; make a public statement condemning acts of torture committed by public servants in the exercise of their duties; and grant the author and his family compensation for material and moral damages amounting to US$ 2,500,000.00, plus costs and defence expenses. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observation that the complaint is inadmissible on the grounds that the author previously submitted a complaint to the InterAmerican Commission of Human Rights. The Committee notes, however, that on 23 January 2009, the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights informed the author that he could not submit a complaint in the context of a complaint submitted by other persons, and invited him to submit an independent petition if he believed that his rights had been violated. Subsequently, on 26 December 2009, the author submitted a complaint to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, which he withdrew on 10 May 2012, before the Commission had had the chance to transmit the complaint to the State party or to consider it. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the complaint should not be considered as being or having been examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement, within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. Consequently, the Committee finds that there is no obstacle to the admissibility of the complaint in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. 8.3 In relation to the requirement set out in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the complaint of torture lodged by the author’s GE.14-06259 9