CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012 the medical experts designated by the parties stated, however, that, although the prison’s rehabilitation treatment facilities were in excellent condition and hygienic, the author suffered from such complex sequelae that he should be admitted into a specialized neurological rehabilitation centre. 6.8 On 2 April 2014, the State party reiterated that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol in the light of the arguments that it had previously presented to the Committee; that the prison sentence handed down to the author forms part of the effort to uphold remembrance, truth and justice; and that the sole intention of the author of the present communication is to avoid serving his prison sentence. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities must decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter has not already been examined by the Committee or has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the author has invoked a violation of article 13 of the Convention and has alleged that, despite his state of health and against the advice of his doctors, he was obliged to travel to the court where the oral proceedings against him were taking place, only to be denied entry to the hearing, so that he was forced to remain in the ambulance or on a stretcher elsewhere. Nevertheless, on the basis of the documentation that has been submitted, the Committee cannot conclude that the author has exhausted all domestic remedies in respect of this allegation and therefore declares this portion of the communication inadmissible under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author has not exhausted all domestic remedies, given that he selected an inappropriate remedy for the alleged violations, and that he has not filed a special federal appeal with the Supreme Court against the Federal Chamber’s decision of 13 July 2012. The Committee notes that the author has applied to the courts for authorization of house arrest or transfer and admission to a health-care centre on a number of occasions. Specifically, he has appealed three times to the Federal Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation, most recently on 29 May 2013. The Committee considers that the State party has failed to explain its assertion that the author used the wrong remedy; nor has it explained how a special federal appeal would have been effective or sufficient, or said what other remedy was available for seeking redress for the violations alleged by the author if they were found to exist. Given the nature of the issues under consideration, the Committee is of the view that the author has made a sufficient effort to bring his complaints before the national authorities. Moreover, by pursuing the extraordinary remedies provided for under State party legislation, the processing of the application could be excessively prolonged, which could jeopardize the applicant’s physical integrity. The Committee therefore concludes that article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol does not pose an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 (e) of the Optional Protocol because the author’s allegations are ill-founded, generic and unspecific. The Committee considers that the author’s complaints and the information provided raise issues that warrant consideration under articles 9; 10; GE.14-05593 13