CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012 patient treatment was chosen, transfer of the author from any of the prison complexes was very likely to cause the treatment to fail, since the federal prison system could not guarantee the frequency or timeliness of such travel, and any progress that the author might make could be reversed if the programme of treatment planned by the FLENI Institute were not maintained. 2.14 On 3 June 2010, the author was once again transferred to the Ezeiza Prison hospital. 2.15 On 24 June 2011, the Lomas de Zamora Court rejected the author’s habeas corpus application, claiming lack of jurisdiction. On the same date, the author applied again to the Federal Criminal Court for court-supervised house arrest, arguing that the Ezeiza Prison had neither the facilities nor the staff required for the rehabilitation of patients with serious neurological conditions who also required assistance to perform the most basic daily tasks; that his rehabilitation had in fact been interrupted; and that the infrastructure was inadequate for persons with disabilities. In his own case, he could not enter the bathroom or shower because of a step that he could not negotiate on his own; he had been assigned to a cell located on the first floor, which meant that he could not access the courtyard on the ground floor; he was unable to maintain his personal hygiene in a sufficient or appropriate manner and, as a rule, had to perform all basic tasks in bed; he had bedsores; and it was impossible to maintain regular contact with nursing staff. Moreover, medical opinions in which another spinal operation had been recommended had not been taken into account. 2.16 On 4 July 2011, the Ezeiza Prison informed the Federal Criminal Court that, although motor physiotherapy and occupational therapy were available, the author refused to undergo rehabilitation treatment. Furthermore, on 19, 20 and 27 July 2011, the author refused to be transferred to the Santa Catalina Clinic to arrange for rehabilitation therapy, arguing that the Clinic could not provide all the required rehabilitation services.1 2.17 On 15 August 2011, the Federal Criminal Court once again rejected the author’s application for house arrest. It considered that the author’s physical and medical condition were not such as to make it impossible for him to recover while in custody or to be adequately cared for in prison and, when necessary, transferred elsewhere in a state-of-theart ambulance with a doctor on board. The Federal Criminal Court found no evidence that he could be suitably and effectively treated only if he were to serve his sentence under house arrest. 2.18 The author lodged an appeal against the Federal Criminal Court’s decision with the Federal Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation (Federal Chamber). On 18 November 2011, the Federal Chamber upheld the appeal and redirected the proceedings back to the Federal Criminal Court based on its finding that there were no up-to-date reports from the Department of Forensic Medicine regarding the author’s health, prison living conditions and the possible health effects of transfers between the prison and rehabilitation facilities. 2.19 In November 2011, the author began travelling to and from San Juan de Dios Hospital. However, on 25 November 2011, the head of the hospital’s rehabilitation service requested that such travel be suspended until such time as a report on the potential consequences of those trips could be obtained from an expert in disorders of the spine. 2.20 On 2 December 2011, the ophthalmologist at the Ezeiza Prison requested that the author’s ophthalmological rehabilitation therapy be resumed in order to treat his left 1 GE.14-05593 According to the Federal Criminal Court decision of 15 August 2011, OSDE had notified the Court on 3 August 2011 that the author and his wife had been informed that all the health-care establishments covered by OSDE were half as far away from the Ezeiza Federal Penitentiary Complex as the FLENI Institute. 5