Decision; Subjects: BURUNDI, TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL TREATMENT; [CAT: UNO-Antifolterkonvention, Übereinkommen gegen Folter; Convention contre la torture; Convenzione contro la tortura]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-07682 (E) 210725 210725
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1007/2020*, **
Communication submitted by:
Adolphe Niyongabo (represented by counsel)1
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Burundi
Date of complaint:
30 March 2020 (initial submission)
Document references:
Decision taken pursuant to rules 114 and 115 of
the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted
to the State Party on 4 June 2020 (not issued in
document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
11 April 2025
Subject matter:
Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment; lack of effective
investigation and redress
Procedural issue:
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Substantive issues:
Torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment; prevention of torture; a prompt
and impartial investigation; treatment of
prisoners; redress
Articles of the Convention:
2 (1) and 11–14, read in conjunction with
articles 1 and 16, and 16
1.1
The complainant is Adolphe Niyongabo, a national of Burundi born in 1978. He
claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (1) and 11–14 of the
Convention, read in conjunction with article 1 or, in the alternative, with article 16, and
article 16 of the Convention, read alone. The State Party has made the declaration pursuant
to article 22 (1) of the Convention, effective from 10 June 2003. The complainant is
represented by counsel.
1.2
On 4 June 2020, pursuant to rule 114 (1) of its rules of procedure, the Committee
requested the State Party to effectively prevent, while the case was under consideration, any
threat or act of violence to which the complainant and his family might be exposed, in
* Adopted by the Committee at its eighty-second session (7 April–2 May 2025).
** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:
Todd Buchwald, Jorge Contesse, Claude Heller, Erdogan Iscan, Peter Vedel Kessing, Liu Huawen,
Maeda Naoko, Ana Racu, Abderrazak Rouwane and Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov.
1 The counsel has requested anonymity.
United Nations
CAT/C/82/D/1007/2020
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
2 June 2025
English
Original: French
CAT/C/82/D/1007/2020
2
GE.25-07682
particular as a result of the submission of the present complaint, and to keep the Committee
informed of the measures adopted to that end.
1.3
On 18 March 2022, the Committee, acting through its Rapporteur on new complaints
and interim measures, decided to examine the admissibility of the communication together
with its merits.
The facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant is married and has five children. After being demobilized from the
Burundian armed forces in 2005, he became a farmer and herder. During the first half of
2016, a series of attacks took place in the commune of Mugamba. These included the clashes
of 25 January 2016, responsibility for which was claimed by one of the armed movements
that was nascent at the time, namely Résistance pour un État de droit au Burundi (RED
Tabara), and ambushes that were carried out by unidentified individuals on vehicles
belonging to the State company for the production and sale of tea on 7 February and 26 April
2016. As a direct consequence, there was a wave of arrests of suspected members of the
groups that were believed to have organized these three attacks, those arrested being mainly
young people and former members of the Burundian armed forces.2
2.2
On 23 June 2016, at around 11 a.m., while grazing his cow herd in his own field, the
complainant was arrested by a National Intelligence Service agent accompanied by six
uniformed police officers and guided by a local Imbonerakure3 leader. No arrest warrant was
presented to him. After his home was searched without any warrant being presented,4 he was
taken to Mugamba Police Station, where he was subjected to acts of torture for around four
hours.
2.3
Four police officers – among whom the complainant recognized the station chief –
began inflicting blows on him that caused him severe pain, with the aim of making him
confess to the charges that had been made against him of possessing weapons and having
participated in armed gangs. They demanded that he confess to being a member of the group
that had ambushed a vehicle belonging to the Burundi Tea Office on 7 February and 26 April
2016, and to possessing weapons. Acting in pairs, the four police officers took turns beating
him with batons and network cables and kicking him with their boots while demanding that
he show them where he had supposedly hidden weapons. The police beat him severely on his
buttocks, legs, arms and back, until he had wounds almost everywhere on his body. These
events took place opposite the offices of the criminal investigation officers at Mugamba
Police Station.
2.4
While they were beating him, the police officers brought out two other young men
who were being held at the same police station. These men had evidently been beaten, given
the wounds on their bodies, and were apparently accused of the same acts as the complainant.
They provided testimony against the complainant, stating that they knew him as a member
of their group that had ambushed a vehicle belonging to the Burundi Tea Office.
2.5
The torture inflicted on the complainant ended when he confessed to the charges
brought against him. He spent the night of 23 June 2016 with eight other suspects accused of
similar acts in the cell at Mugamba Police Station, which measures approximately 8 by
4 metres, on a cement floor, without receiving any medical attention.
2.6
With wounds covering most of his body, the complainant was transferred the
following day to the cells of the National Intelligence Service in Bujumbura. In total, he was
detained at the police station and the National Intelligence Service for 12 days – from 23 June
until 5 July 2016 – without the assistance of a lawyer. During the 11 days of his detention at
the National Intelligence Service, the complainant was placed in a cell measuring
approximately 2 square metres, which he shared with another person. He was permitted to
2 The complainant explains that former members of the Burundian armed forces were among the first
to be suspected by the State security services of fomenting unrest and being potential members of the
armed gangs that were forming at that time.
3 Members of the youth movement affiliated with the National Council for the Defence of
Democracy-Forces for the Defence of Democracy.
4 No weapons or military items were found by the police officers during the search.
CAT/C/82/D/1007/2020
GE.25-07682
3
leave his cell twice a day for just 15 minutes to get fresh air, go to the toilet, shower and fetch
water to drink. He was not allowed to receive visits from members of his family.5 Thanks to
the food aid provided to the National Intelligence Service by the International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC) to support people incarcerated there, the complainant was able to eat
an unvarying dish of rice and beans twice a day.
2.7
At the National Intelligence Service, the complainant was interrogated by agents who,
in order to obtain a confession to the charges against him, threatened him with death if he
retracted his confession. As a result, the complainant, who was still covered in wounds, stood
by his confession to the charges against him because of these threats.
2.8
Despite his state of health, the complainant was denied access to care at the National
Intelligence Service. On two occasions, he verbally requested the opportunity to seek medical
treatment, but his request was refused. His suffering continued throughout the night; it was
difficult for him to sleep because he was covered with wounds and could not easily find a
side to rest on. As one of the few organizations with access to the National Intelligence
Service, ICRC made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain permission for the complainant
to seek medical treatment. ICRC personnel therefore decided to give him tablets, which he
took in the cells of the National Intelligence Service.
2.9
On 5 July 2016, the complainant was taken to the prosecutor’s office of the Mukaza
High Court, where he was questioned by a prosecution official. Subsequently, on the same
day, the complainant was transferred to Mpimba Central Prison. It was only on that date,
5 July 2016, that he had access to legal counsel for the first time. At the time of his transfer
to the prison, a family member was finally able to see him and took photographs of his
injuries, which were still very evident 12 days after the torture had been inflicted on him.6
Other, similar photographs taken by the complainant’s fellow inmates using a mobile phone
in December 2016, after the wounds had healed, clearly show that, several months after the
fact, signs of torture were still visible on his body.7
2.10
On 5 August 2016, the Bujumbura Mairie Tribunal de Grande Instance (court of major
jurisdiction) issued an order in chambers for the complainant to be placed in pretrial
detention. On 3 August 2016, the complainant’s lawyer reported the torture to which he had
been subjected to the judge who was in chambers to review the regularity of the detention,
and the complainant showed the judge the marks of torture, which were still visible. He also
pointed out procedural irregularities, which included the fact that the time limits for custodial
arrest – the complainant had been held for 12 days instead of the 7 days provided for by law
– and for issuing an arrest warrant – 29 days in the complainant’s case instead of the 15 days
provided for by law – had been exceeded. However, his requests were not acted upon. In his
appeal against the order, the complainant pointed out that he had been tortured to make him
testify against himself, and that his confession should not therefore be admitted as evidence.
However, the Bujumbura Court of Appeal upheld the decision handed down by the court of
major jurisdiction in chambers.
2.11
On 19 December 2016, the complainant reported the torture he had suffered by filing
a complaint with the public prosecutor at the Mukaza High Court. As part of the follow-up
to this complaint, checks were made with the public prosecutor’s office on several occasions,
but nothing was done to investigate the events reported. The complaint was resubmitted on
22 May 2017 but received no follow-up.
2.12
The complainant was charged with participation in armed gangs, undermining the
internal security of the State and illegal possession of firearms, but there was a delay in the
referral of his case to the adjudicating court for reasons that were not communicated to him.
It was not until September 2017 that the case was called for the first time in open court to be
debated on the merits. Finally, on 18 December 2017, the Mukaza High Court held a public
hearing where the case of the complainant and his co-accused was heard. The complainant
again reported the acts of torture that he had suffered, supporting his oral reports with a
5 His family had not been informed of his detention at the police station and the National Intelligence
Service.
6 These photographs are included in the case file.
7 These photographs are also included in the case file.
CAT/C/82/D/1007/2020
4
GE.25-07682
photograph, added to the case file, that showed the torture. However, instead of noting the
nullities in the proceedings – the complainant had confessed to the charges against him under
torture – the judges redefined the charges, with the result that he was convicted of robbery
and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The complainant completed his
sentence in December 2018.
2.13
The conditions in which the complainant was detained at Mpimba Prison were
deplorable. This overcrowded prison was some 120 kilometres from his family’s home, and
the food was insufficient and of poor quality.
2.14
When he was released from prison, the complainant did not return home directly for
fear of falling back into the hands of his torturers. Fearing that he would be falsely implicated
in another crime, he chose to live in hiding despite his strong desire to spend time with his
family. In October 2019, as he tried to return home, he came upon the Imbonerakure leader
who had contributed to his arrest. The leader, who was apparently surprised to see him again
out of prison, asked him what he had come to do in Mugamba and made remarks that were
intended to scare him and lead him to prepare for the worst.8 Moreover, the complainant was
informed by credible sources that, at a security meeting held in Mugamba between September
and October 2019, the administrator had said publicly that there was information that some
people who had been released from the prison were illegally in possession of weapons; the
identification of all those who had recently been released from the prison was therefore under
way.
2.15
Despite the reports made, more than three years and six months after the events, no
inquiry had been opened with a view to establishing what actually took place during the
complainant’s detention, and no investigative action had been taken. The violations suffered
by the complainant have also been reported by the Ligue burundaise des droits de l’homme
(ITEKA), a Burundian human rights organization,9 and under the SOS Torture campaign
launched by Burundian civil society in exile. As a result, the perpetrators of the violations
committed against the complainant have not been identified and the acts relating to his torture
remain unpunished. The complainant continues to live in hiding and avoids regularly
appearing in public in his native commune.
2.16
The Burundian authorities were thus informed repeatedly of the torture suffered by
the complainant and could not therefore have been unaware of it. However, on the date of
submission of the present complaint to the Committee, more than three years and six months
had passed since the events had occurred, and no investigative action had been taken. Besides
the authorities’ clear refusal to establish liabilities in this case, the complainant also draws
attention to the general climate of impunity in Burundi, particularly with regard to acts of
torture, which has been the subject of numerous reports by United Nations bodies. In its
concluding observations on the second periodic report of Burundi, the Committee expressed
concern about the slow pace and limited scope of the investigations and judicial proceedings
that have been opened in this connection, which would appear to corroborate claims that the
perpetrators of acts of torture and extrajudicial killings committed by the Burundian National
Police and the National Intelligence Service enjoy impunity.10
2.17
Consequently, the complainant claims that (a) he gained no satisfaction from the
available domestic remedies, as the authorities did not respond to his complaints whereas
they should have opened a criminal investigation on the basis of his allegations before the
judge and his formal complaint to the public prosecutor; (b) the application of these remedies
has been unreasonably long, given that, more than three years and six months after the acts
of torture were reported, no investigation had been opened; and (c) it was dangerous for him
to take any further steps because he was at risk of reprisals, as the Imbonerakure militias who
had actually contributed to his arrest were continuing to spread terror in his locality.
8 He threatened him that “this time it will not be like it was in 2015”.
9 Ligue ITEKA, Bulletin spécial sur la répression du pouvoir contre des militaires et policiers
soupçonnés être contre le troisième mandat du président Pierre Nkurunziza, 2016, p. 18.
10 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 11. See also the 2017 conference room paper of the Commission of Inquiry
on Burundi, available on the web page of the Commission (www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-i-
burundi/co-i-burundi), para. 635.
CAT/C/82/D/1007/2020
GE.25-07682
5
Complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (1)
and 11–14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 1 or, in the alternative, with
article 16, and under article 16 of the Convention, read alone.
3.2
According to the complainant, the mistreatment inflicted on him caused him severe
suffering, which still has a lingering impact on his physical and psychological health. Many
of the scars caused by the torture that he endured for approximately four hours on 23 June
2016 are still visible on his forearms and back. The aim of the police officers who violently
beat him was to cause him such suffering. In addition, he was denied access to care. These
acts of torture were inflicted by members of the Burundian National Police with the aim of
extracting confessions and information from him and punishing him for his status as a former
soldier. The complainant maintains that this abuse constituted torture within the meaning of
article 1 of the Convention.
3.3
The complainant, invoking article 2 (1) of the Convention, claims that the State Party
has not taken effective measures to prevent acts of torture in the territory under its
jurisdiction. In particular, the complainant arrived at the National Intelligence Service
covered in wounds and received no appropriate care throughout his detention, with the
exception of the small number of tablets administered to him by ICRC personnel. The
complainant only had access to a lawyer when he was transferred to the prosecutor’s office
on 5 July 2016, approximately two weeks after his arrest. He had not received legal assistance
during questioning at the police station and the National Intelligence Service. He was unable
to contact his family during his 11-day detention at the National Intelligence Service.
Moreover, despite the complainant’s reports of torture, the State Party did not fulfil its
obligation to investigate the acts of torture that had been inflicted on him and to bring the
persons responsible for those acts to justice. Accordingly, the complainant submits that the
State Party failed to take the measures, including the legislative measures, required under
article 2 (1) of the Convention.
3.4
Invoking article 11 of the Convention and referring to the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) and the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,
the complainant argues that the State Party has clearly failed in its obligation to keep under
systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as
arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest,
detention or imprisonment. This failure is reflected in the following facts, among others: at
the time of his deprivation of liberty, the complainant was at no point notified of his rights;
he was unable to exercise his right to receive visits during his detention at the National
Intelligence Service; he did not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer during the
interrogations at the police station and at the National Intelligence Service; he did not receive
healthcare throughout the 2 years and 6 months of his detention; he did not have effective
remedies to report the acts of torture; and he was held in deplorable conditions for 2 years
and 6 months.
3.5
Furthermore, the complainant submits that, although the Burundian authorities were
informed of the torture to which he had been subjected through reports to the judges and a
formal complaint lodged on 19 December 2016, they did not conduct a prompt and effective
investigation into the allegations of torture, in violation of the obligations imposed on the
State Party under article 12 of the Convention. He also alleges that the State Party did not
respect his right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by,
its competent authorities, in breach of its obligations under article 13 of the Convention.
3.6
With regard to article 14 of the Convention, the complainant considers that, by failing
to conduct a criminal investigation, the State Party has also deprived him of his right to obtain
redress and his right to fair and adequate compensation. In this regard, following the torture
to which he was subjected, he did not receive rehabilitation assistance of any kind or the
means for as full rehabilitation as possible, as provided for under article 14 of the Convention.
In view of the inaction of the judicial authorities, other remedies to obtain redress, such as a
civil suit for damages, have no realistic prospect of success. In 2014, the Committee
specifically expressed its concern about the failure to apply the provision of the Code of
CAT/C/82/D/1007/2020
6
GE.25-07682
Criminal Procedure providing for compensation for victims of torture, in violation of
article 14 of the Convention.11 In 2016, it reiterated its concerns about the need to guarantee
adequate compensation in accordance with article 14.12
3.7
The complainant reiterates that the violent acts inflicted on him constitute torture, in
accordance with the definition set out in article 1 of the Convention. Should the Committee
not agree to qualify it as such, he maintains that the abuse he endured constitutes cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment and that, on this basis, the State Party also has an obligation,
under article 16 of the Convention, to prevent public officials from committing, instigating
or tolerating such acts and to punish them if they do. In addition, the complainant recalls the
conditions of detention imposed on him in the cells of the National Intelligence Service and
at Mpimba Prison, where he was held in deplorable conditions for a total of 2 years and
6 months, which in itself constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The complainant
refers again to the Committee’s concluding observations on the reports submitted by Burundi
under article 19 of the Convention, in which it has noted that conditions of detention in
Burundi amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.13 Lastly, the complainant recalls that
he received no medical treatment while in detention, despite being in a critical condition, and
therefore concludes that the conditions of detention he experienced constitute a violation of
article 16 of the Convention.
State Party’s observations on admissibility
4.
On 15 June 2021, the State Party submitted its observations. It argues that the
Committee should reject the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention
because the complainant – contrary to the statements in his complaint concerning the judicial
steps taken – has not lodged any complaint with the public prosecutor’s office in Mukaza to
report the torture to which he was allegedly subjected.14
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.
On 22 September 2021, the complainant submitted his comments on the State Party’s
observations. He observes that the State Party failed to meet the procedural time limit for
submitting its observations. He further recalls that he produced a copy of the complaint filed
on 19 December 2016 with the public prosecutor’s office in the commune of Mukaza, and
the follow-up letter dated 22 May 2017, at the time of his initial communication. Lastly, the
complainant recalls that he also reported the torture suffered through other channels.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must
decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has
ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same
matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
6.2
The Committee notes that the State Party has contested the admissibility of the
complaint on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, contending that the
complainant had not formally raised the allegations of torture with the competent authorities
as he claimed to have done in his initial communication to the Committee. However, the
Committee notes that the complainant in fact produced a copy of his complaint to the public
prosecutor’s office in Mukaza, dated 19 December 2016, at the time of submission of his
communication. In this respect, the Committee notes that the State Party simply asserts that
the complainant has not lodged any complaint, without demonstrating that the documents
produced by the complainant are forgeries. Even if it were to be assumed that the documents
produced by the complainant were forgeries, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim,
11 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 18.
12 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 27 (d).
13 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 17; and CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 15.
14 The State Party has not submitted other facts or evidence.
CAT/C/82/D/1007/2020
GE.25-07682
7
which is not contested by the State Party, that he expressly reported the torture that he
suffered to the judges during the criminal proceedings against him. In this regard, the
Committee notes that, in his appeal of 26 September 2016, which bears the stamp of the
registry of the Court of Appeal, the complainant’s counsel clearly mentions that the
complainant had been tortured. Lastly, the Committee notes the photographs produced by the
complainant, which show marks on his arms, and which have not been contested by the State
Party.
6.3
The Committee recalls that, pursuant to article 12 of the Convention, States Parties
are under an obligation to ensure that the competent authorities proceed to a prompt and
impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture
has been committed. It considers that, once a State Party has become cognizant of allegations
of torture, regardless of which authority has been informed thereof, it is under an obligation
to carry out an investigation and, if appropriate, to initiate legal proceedings, which has not
been done in the present case. The Committee further considers that the burden of proof
should not be borne solely by the complainant, given that the complainant and the State Party
do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that frequently the State Party
alone is in possession of the relevant information. In cases where the allegations are
corroborated by credible evidence submitted by the complainant and where further
clarification depends on information exclusively in the hands of the State Party, the
Committee may consider the allegations to have been sufficiently substantiated in the absence
of satisfactory evidence or explanations from the State Party to the contrary.15
6.4
In the absence of any pertinent information from the State Party in this regard, the
Committee rejects the State Party’s objection to the admissibility of the complaint, as the
State Party has failed to demonstrate that existing remedies for reporting acts of torture were,
in practice, made available to the complainant to enable him to assert his rights under the
Convention.16 The Committee notes that the complainant tried to use domestic remedies, but
that they proved to be ineffective in his case.
6.5
In the absence of any other obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, the
Committee proceeds with its consideration of the merits of the claims submitted by the
complainant under articles 2 (1), 11–14 and 16 of the Convention.
State Party’s failure to cooperate
7.
On 18 March 2022, 2 November 2022 and 24 November 2023, the State Party was
invited to submit its observations on the merits of the communication. The Committee notes
that no clarifications were received. It regrets the State Party’s refusal to communicate any
information on the merits of the complainant’s claims. 17 It recalls that the State Party
concerned is required, under the Convention, to submit to the Committee written explanations
or statements clarifying the matter and indicating the steps, if any, that the State Party may
have taken to remedy the situation.
Consideration of the merits
8.1
The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the
information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the
Convention. As the State Party has not provided any detailed information on the merits, due
weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations, which have been properly
substantiated.18
8.2
The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that he was beaten for
approximately four hours by four police officers, who delivered violent blows to the
complainant’s buttocks, legs, arms and back with their boots and network cables. The
15 N’Dour v. Morocco (CAT/C/58/D/650/2015), para. 8.2.
16 Nshimirimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/79/D/1039/2020), para. 6.4.
17 Ndagijimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/496/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/496/2012/Corr.1), para. 7;
Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/493/2012/Corr.1), para. 7; and
Ntikarahera v. Burundi (CAT/C/52/D/503/2012), para. 4.
18 See, inter alia, N.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/74/D/795/2017), para. 6.1.
CAT/C/82/D/1007/2020
8
GE.25-07682
Committee also notes: (a) that the complainant was made to continue suffering as a result of
the lack of appropriate care and the unsanitary conditions of detention; (b) that the police
officers did not allow ICRC personnel to provide the complainant with medical assistance;
and (c) that he was detained in appalling conditions on the premises of the National
Intelligence Service and at Mpimba Prison, where he was deprived of access to medical care
in particular for 2 years and 6 months. The Committee also notes that the complainant was
held on the premises of the police and the National Intelligence Service without access either
to a lawyer or to his family for 12 days. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according
to which any persons deprived of their liberty must be provided with prompt and independent
legal and medical assistance and must be able to contact their families, in order to prevent
torture.19 The Committee likewise takes note of the complainant’s allegations that the beating
to which he was subjected caused him severe suffering, including emotional and
psychological suffering, and was deliberately inflicted by State officials with the aim of
extracting confessions from him and intimidating and punishing him. It also notes that these
allegations have at no time been contested by the State Party. In these circumstances, the
Committee concludes that the facts as presented by the complainant constitute torture within
the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.20
8.3
The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claims based on article 2 (1) of the
Convention and recalls its conclusions and recommendations in respect of the reports
submitted by the State Party under article 19 of the Convention, in which it urged it to take
effective legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent all acts of torture and all
ill-treatment and to take steps, as a matter of urgency, to bring all places of detention under
judicial control to prevent its officials from making arbitrary arrests and engaging in torture.21
In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations about the treatment
inflicted on him by State officials during his arrest and detention at the National Intelligence
Service, throughout which time he was unable to contact his family or have access to counsel
or a doctor. The Committee also notes that the State Party did not take any measures to protect
the complainant. Lastly, the State authorities have taken no steps to investigate the acts of
torture suffered by the complainant and duly punish those responsible, despite the complaints
that he presented before the judges and the public prosecutor’s office in this regard. In the
light of the foregoing, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction
with article 1, of the Convention.22
8.4
The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 of the
Convention – which calls on States Parties to keep under systematic review arrangements for
the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or
imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of
torture – was violated. The complainant argues, in particular, that: (a) despite his critical
condition, he did not receive appropriate medical care; (b) he did not have access to a lawyer
during his interrogations on police and National Intelligence Service premises; (c) he was
arrested without being informed of the charges against him; (d) he did not have effective
remedies to report the acts of torture; and (e) he was detained in appalling conditions on the
premises of the National Intelligence Service and at Mpimba Prison, where he was also
deprived of access to medical care. The Committee recalls its concluding observations
regarding the second periodic report of Burundi, adopted in 2014, and those regarding the
third periodic report of Burundi, adopted in 2023, in which it expressed concern at the
excessive length of time during which people can be held in police custody, the numerous
instances in which the permissible duration of police custody has been exceeded, failures to
keep registers on persons in custody or to ensure that such records are complete, failures to
comply with fundamental legal safeguards for persons deprived of their liberty, the absence
of provisions that guarantee access to a doctor and access to legal assistance for persons of
limited means, and the excessive use of pretrial detention in the absence of regular reviews
19 See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007).
20 Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.2; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.2; Kabura v. Burundi
(CAT/C/59/D/549/2013), para. 7.2; and Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 8.2.
21 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 10; and CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 8 ff. See also CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 21.
22 Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.4; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.3; Niyonzima v. Burundi,
para. 8.4; and E.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/56/D/578/2013), para. 7.5.
CAT/C/82/D/1007/2020
GE.25-07682
9
of its legality and of any limit on its total duration.23 In the present case, the complainant
appears to have been deprived of any form of judicial oversight. In the absence of any relevant
information to the contrary from the State Party, the existence of such deplorable conditions
and treatment is sufficient to establish that the State Party failed to fulfil its obligation to keep
under systematic review arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to
any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a
view to preventing any cases of torture, and that this violation resulted in harm to the
complainant. The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 11 of the Convention.24
8.5
With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the
complainant’s allegations that, on 23 June 2016, he was arrested and violently beaten by four
uniformed police officers on police premises and was subsequently interrogated and
threatened on the premises of the National Intelligence Service. Although he reported the
torture to the judges and, by means of a formal complaint, to the public prosecutor, and
appeared bearing visible signs of torture, no investigation has been carried out nine years
after the events in question. The Committee considers that so long a delay in initiating an
investigation into allegations of torture is patently unjustified. In this regard, it draws
attention to the State Party’s obligation under article 12 of the Convention to ensure that a
prompt and impartial investigation is carried out wherever there is reasonable ground to
believe that an act of torture has been committed.25 The Committee therefore finds a violation
of article 12 of the Convention.
8.6
In view of the foregoing findings, the State Party also failed to fulfil its responsibility
under article 13 of the Convention to guarantee the right of the complainant to lodge a
complaint, which presupposes that the authorities provide a satisfactory response by
launching a prompt and impartial investigation.26 The Committee notes that article 13 does
not require the formal lodging of a complaint of torture under the procedure laid down in
national law, nor does it require an express statement of desire that criminal proceedings be
instituted; it is enough for the victim simply to come forward and bring the facts to the
attention of an authority of the State for the latter to be obliged to consider this a tacit but
unequivocal expression of the victim’s wish to have an immediate and impartial investigation
initiated, as prescribed by this article of the Convention.27 The Committee concludes that the
facts of the case also constitute a violation of article 13 of the Convention.
8.7
Regarding the complainant’s claims under article 14 of the Convention, the
Committee recalls that this article not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate
compensation but also requires States Parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture
obtains redress. The Committee recalls that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the
victim and encompasses, among other measures, restitution, compensation and guarantees of
non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of each case.28 In the
present case, in the absence of a prompt and impartial investigation, despite clear material
evidence that the complainant was the victim of acts of torture, which have gone unpunished,
the Committee concludes that the State Party has also failed to fulfil its obligations under
article 14 of the Convention.29
8.8
Regarding the claim under article 16 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of
the complainant’s claims about the detention conditions at Mugamba Police Station, in the
cells of the National Intelligence Service and at Mpimba Prison. In the absence of any
relevant information from the State Party in this regard, the Committee concludes that the
information provided shows that the conditions constituted inhuman and degrading
23 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10, and CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 24.
24 E.N. v. Burundi, para. 7.6.
25 Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.5; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.5; Kabura v. Burundi,
para. 7.4; and Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.4.
26 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.5.
27 Parot v. Spain (CAT/C/14/D/6/1990), para. 10.4; Blanco Abad v. Spain (CAT/C/20/D/59/1996),
para. 8.6; and Ltaief v. Tunisia (CAT/C/31/D/189/2001), para. 10.6.
28 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.6. See also Ntikarahera v. Burundi, para. 6.5.
29 Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.7.
CAT/C/82/D/1007/2020
10
GE.25-07682
treatment30 and disclose a violation by the State Party of its obligations under article 16 of
the Convention.31
9.
The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the facts
before it reveal a violation by the State Party of articles 2 (1) and 11–14, read in conjunction
with article 1, and of article 16 of the Convention.
10.
The Committee deeply regrets that the State Party has failed to respond to its repeated
requests to comment on the merits of the present communication, thereby preventing the
Committee from considering the case and resolving the issues raised in the communication
under the Convention. As the State Party has failed to respond to the Committee’s requests
to submit observations on the merits, thereby refusing to cooperate with it and preventing it
from effectively considering the elements of the complaint, the Committee, acting under
article 22 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the State Party’s refusal to cooperate with
it constitutes a violation by the State Party of article 22 of the Convention. The Committee
remains deeply concerned about the State Party’s failure to cooperate with the individual
complaints procedure 32 and invites the State Party to re-establish full dialogue and
cooperation with the Committee in the examination of individual communications.33
11.
The Committee urges the State Party to (a) initiate a thorough and impartial
investigation into the incidents in question, conducted by an independent body, with
reference also to the guidelines of the Manual on the Effective Investigation and
Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(Istanbul Protocol), as revised; (b) prosecute and punish those responsible for the
complainant’s treatment; (c) provide the complainant with appropriate redress, including
compensation for material and non-material damages, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction
and guarantees of non-repetition; and (d) ensure that no similar violations occur in the future.
12.
Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State Party
to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of the present decision, of the steps it
has taken to respond to the above observations.
30 See also CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 29.
31 Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.8; Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.8; and Ntikarahera v. Burundi,
para. 6.6.
32 CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 47. See also Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 7; Ndagijimana v. Burundi,
para. 7; Ntikarahera v. Burundi, para. 4; O.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/71/D/843/2017), para. 4; R.M. v.
Burundi (CAT/C/72/D/793/2017), para. 4; M.D. v. Burundi (CAT/C/73/D/921/2019), para. 4; and
Ndayirukiye v. Burundi (CAT/C/73/D/952/2019), para. 7.
33 CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 48. See also Nshimirimana v. Burundi, para. 10.