CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012 3.4 His access to the shower and toilet is limited owing to the size of the bathroom, and he relies on the assistance of the sole nurse in his block or the goodwill of other inmates and guards in order to reach them. The work and alterations carried out by the prison authorities to remove the step that hindered his access to the bathroom and shower are not sufficient because the size of the bathroom is not adapted to wheelchairs; he is thus unable to reach the toilet and shower under his own power. His current condition and the lack of assistance from others do not enable him to attend to his daily hygiene needs, and he depends in part on absorbent pads and products provided by his family. The modifications that were made to his place of detention are insufficient to change the conditions that are irreparably undermining his physical and mental health, in violation of article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The author recalls that the State must guarantee the right to life and integrity of the person and that it bears a special responsibility in this respect because of the extent of the control that prison authorities exercise over persons in custody. 3.5 The author does not have timely contact with the nurse responsible for his block. Although a call button was installed, calls are often not answered immediately and sometimes not at all. He has developed scabs on a number of occasions owing to the lack of a special mattress to prevent bedsores, and his movements are extremely limited. Since his arrival at the Ezeiza Prison, he has not undergone proper postural or visual rehabilitation therapy such as that provided by neurological rehabilitation teams composed of clinical neurologists, physiotherapists, kinesiologists and speech therapists. The closest health-care centre that could provide suitable rehabilitation treatment is 32 km away. He has never undergone visual rehabilitation treatment as prescribed by the ophthalmological staff. He was transferred to a hospital only after he developed an infection that required surgery. The lack of suitable rehabilitation therapy impedes his reintegration into society, his family circle and the labour force because he cannot work in the prison or attain, through the use of educational and therapeutic tools and practices, the kind of life led by other inmates. All of the above constitutes a violation of article 17 of the Convention. 3.6 The author alleges that the courts did not take due account of his situation and ordered his imprisonment despite medical information supporting his application for house arrest or for a custodial arrangement in hospital. More specifically, they arbitrarily dismissed his claims that travel between the Ezeiza Prison and the rehabilitation hospital was prejudicial to his health and could pose a serious risk, given the instability of his spine. House arrest would allow him to undergo outpatient rehabilitation with his attending physicians at the FLENI Institute, which is 5 km from his house by paved road and offers all the necessary rehabilitation services. 3.7 The author further states that he was obliged — as, for example, on 11 April 2011 — to travel to the site where his trial was being held only to be denied access to the hearing, forcing him to spend over six hours in the ambulance, against his doctors’ advice. This is an illustration of the authorities’ arbitrary decisions regarding persons who, like him, have been accused of crimes against humanity. 3.8 By way of reparation, the author requests that he be placed under house arrest until such time as he is fit to undergo another operation on his cervical spine and that he be authorized to complete the necessary rehabilitation in a timely manner as a day patient at the FLENI Institute in Escobar, subject to any security measures the State party deems necessary, appropriate and reasonable. State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits 4.1 On 12 March 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication and requested that it should be declared inadmissible under article 2, paragraphs (d) and (e), of the Optional Protocol based on the following arguments. 8 GE.14-05593