CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012 8.9 The Committee recalls that, under article 25 of the Convention, persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination and that States parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities to health services, including rehabilitation. Furthermore, article 26 stipulates that States parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to enable persons with disabilities to attain and maintain maximum independence, full physical, mental, social and vocational ability, and full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life, through comprehensive habilitation and rehabilitation services and programmes in such a way that they begin at the earliest possible stage and are based on the multidisciplinary assessment of individual needs and strengths. In the light of these provisions, read in conjunction with article 14, paragraph 2, the Committee recalls that States parties have a special responsibility to uphold human rights when prison authorities exercise significant control or power over persons with disabilities who have been deprived of their liberty by a court of law. 8.10 In the present case, there is no doubt that the author requires health care and rehabilitation. In this connection, the Committee notes that, since his arrival at the Ezeiza Prison on 26 May 2011, the prison has failed to provide the rehabilitation therapy prescribed by his attending physicians at the FLENI Institute on a regular basis. However, the author has on occasion refused to undergo rehabilitation treatment at the Ezeiza Prison or outside hospitals selected by the authorities. As a result of action taken by the Federal Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation, the author has had regular physiotherapy and psychotherapy sessions at the San Juan de Dios rehabilitation centre and the prison hospital since July 2013. The Committee is aware that the statements of the author and the State party regarding the quality and quantity of the author’s rehabilitation treatments while in prison are contradictory. Nevertheless, the Committee observes that, on the one hand, the author’s claims have not been substantiated in an entirely convincing manner and that, on the other hand, the courts have taken steps to respond to the author’s medical needs. Consequently, and given the particular circumstances of this case, the Committee does not have sufficient evidence before it to conclude that violations of articles 25 and 26 of the Convention have occurred. Risks posed to the author’s health and life by the condition of his cervical spine 8.11 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims regarding the frailty of his cervical spine and the serious risks posed by the fact that the surgically implanted plate has shifted and is no longer attached. According to the author, the authorities have seriously endangered his life and health by confining him in a prison and obliging him to accept outpatient treatment that entails frequent ambulance transfers, which pose a serious risk to his life and health. The Committee further takes note of the medical opinions requested by judicial authorities and those submitted by the author. The Committee observes that the author’s attending physicians at the FLENI Institute recommended outpatient treatment on 7 April 2010; that after this date, the author was admitted to health-care centres, including one of his own choosing, and underwent medical assessments and tests; and that the medical opinions regarding the potential consequences that such travel could have due to the condition of the author’s cervical spine are inconclusive. In the light of the information at its disposal, the Committee does not have sufficient evidence before it to conclude that travel to and from the prison in a highly sophisticated ambulance with a doctor in attendance, or the author’s confinement in prison, constitute a violation of article 10 or article 25 of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, is of the view that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligations under article 9, paragraphs 1 (a) and (b), article 14, paragraph 2, and article 17 of the Convention and therefore makes the following recommendations to the State party: 16 GE.14-05593