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.25-08075 (E) 120625 120625
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1100/2021*, **
Communication submitted by:
Déogratias Hatungimana (represented by
counsels Armel Niyongere, Jean Claude
Ntiburumunsi and Divine Ntiranyuhura)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Burundi
Date of complaint:
16 December 2020 (initial submission)
Document references:
Decision taken pursuant to rule 115 of the
Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to
the State Party on 1 November 2021 (not issued
in document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
22 April 2025
Subject matter:
Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment; lack of effective
investigation and redress
Procedural issue:
Exhaustion of local remedies
Substantive issues:
Torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment; prevention of torture; prompt and
impartial investigation; treatment of prisoners;
reparation
Articles of the Convention:
2 (1) and 11–14, read in conjunction with
articles 1 and 16, and 16
1.
The complainant is Déogratias Hatungimana, a national of Burundi born in 1970. 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
under article 16 of the Convention, read alone. The State Party has made the declaration
pursuant to article 22 (1), effective from 10 June 2003. The complainant is represented by
counsels.
Facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
On 6 September 2014, as part of his work for a security company, the complainant
was working at the gate of the Catholic church in Kamenge. At around 6 p.m., he spotted a
* 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.
United Nations
CAT/C/82/D/1100/2021
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
4 June 2025
English
Original: French
CAT/C/82/D/1100/2021
2
GE.25-08075
number of the country’s top security officials – a general and three police superintendents –
entering the building in turn. The next morning, the complainant completed his shift and
returned home without incident. As soon as he arrived home, he received a phone call from
a cook informing him of the murder of the three nuns living in the church’s outbuildings.
Subsequently, his superior at the security company summoned him and questioned him
about the matter. The complainant mentioned the names of the four officials he had seen,
while specifying that he had neither seen nor heard anything about the murder.
2.2
Two days after the murder of the nuns, the complainant was informed that their
housemaid had been murdered. In the days that followed, the cook and cleaner who worked
for the nuns were murdered. The complainant learned that he was also on the list of wanted
persons and fled but before he reached the border with Rwanda, one of the three
superintendents called him on his wife’s telephone to tell him that his family was being
held hostage and that he had to report to the National Intelligence Service or his family
would be murdered. The complainant therefore went back on an unspecified date.
2.3
The following morning, the complainant reported to the office of the National
Intelligence Service in Rohero. The police officers bound his legs with rope, hung him
upside down and burned his left arm with a tool connected to an electrical power source. He
was left hanging for the whole day before being put in a cell, where he spent three weeks.
Throughout the time that he spent in detention at the National Intelligence Service, under
the orders of the same superintendent, the police tortured him, handcuffed him and
suspended him on a board from 8 to 10 a.m. Every day, the superintendent called him into
his office and asked him what he knew about the night of the nuns’ murder and the people
who had entered the church. He forced the complainant to confess his guilt by making him
walk barefoot over a red carpet from which needles emerged to prick him when he pressed
a button.
2.4
During the complainant’s detention, he ate an excessively salty dish of rice and
beans, which were full of stones, once a day. In the cell, a bucket served as a toilet and the
inmates disposed of the waste in the morning. After three weeks, the complainant was
transferred to Rumonge Prison and placed in a cell that he shared with other inmates. One
day, an inmate known as the “general”, in the jargon of the prison, told the complainant that
the superintendent had come to abduct him on the pretext that he had been summoned by
the public prosecutor. Fortunately, however, the prison officials refused to act on this
alleged summons in the absence of an official letter from the public prosecutor.
2.5
As a result of the torture and the poor detention conditions, the complainant fell ill
and the prison governor granted him permission to seek medical treatment. He was
admitted to the Prince Regent Charles Hospital in Bujumbura, under police guard. During
his convalescence, the complainant planned his escape. One day, he went into exile. Told
that his photos were on display at all the borders, the complainant took an illegal route out
of fear of being stopped and made his way to the Mbarara refugee camp in Uganda, where
his injuries were treated at a health centre. Noticing signs that his personal safety was at
risk, following visits by unidentified persons, he was transferred to a more secure police
hospital in Mayanja, with fencing and police nearby.
2.6
On leaving hospital, the complainant decided to move to a place where he would
feel safe. He went to Kenya, where he was subjected to a number of threats by young
persons affiliated with the Burundian presidential party Conseil national pour la défense de
la démocratie-Forces pour la défense de la démocratie. He then decided to settle in Rwanda,
in the refugee camp in Mahama, in November 2019.
2.7
The complainant did not try to exhaust domestic remedies as these proved to be
unavailable, given the serious human rights violations in Burundi and the various
shortcomings in the judicial system, which include widespread impunity and interference
by the executive branch in judicial matters. Taking legal action would be very dangerous
for him, given the identity of the perpetrators of the acts of which he was a victim, his
particularly vulnerable situation and the general situation that prevailed in Burundi.
CAT/C/82/D/1100/2021
GE.2508075
3
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 abuse to which he was subjected caused him
acute physical and psychological pain and suffering. These acts of torture, intentionally
inflicted by members of the National Police and the National Intelligence Service, were
aimed at obtaining information from him about the murder of the nuns at the church and the
people present that evening. The complainant states that this abuse amounted to 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 did not take effective measures to prevent acts of torture in the territory under its
jurisdiction. During his questioning at the National Intelligence Service, the complainant
was not assisted by a lawyer. Despite the amendment of the Criminal Code, torture remains
subject to a statute of limitations of 20 or 30 years, depending on the circumstances,1 which
constitutes a legal obstacle to the effective prevention of acts of torture.
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 failing is evident from the following facts, among
others: throughout his detention, the complainant was unable to exercise his right to receive
visits, was not assisted by a lawyer during his questioning, and did not receive any
healthcare until his condition had already deteriorated.
3.5
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 by article 14. 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 article of the Code of Criminal
Procedure providing for compensation for victims of torture, in violation of article 14 of the
Convention. 2 In 2016, it reiterated its concerns about the need to guarantee adequate
compensation in accordance with article 14.3
3.6
The complainant reiterates that the violence to which he was subjected constitutes
torture in accordance with the definition set out in article 1 of the Convention. Should the
Committee not accept this characterization, 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.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 21 March and 5 May 2022, the State Party submitted its observations. It argues
that the Committee should reject the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the
Convention, since the complainant has made no attempt to bring the matter before a
domestic judicial body. The State Party explains that it has laws, judicial institutions and
non-judicial mechanisms for the protection of human rights in general and the guarantee of
fair trials in particular.
1 Criminal Code, art. 148.
2 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 18.
3 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 27 (d).
CAT/C/82/D/1100/2021
4
GE.25-08075
4.2
On the merits, the State Party rejects all the complainant’s allegations, considering
them to be rather a crude lie obviously put together with the sole aim of tarnishing the
country’s image on the international stage, following the example set by the authors of a
number of misleading reports on human rights in Burundi to which the complainant refers.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.1
On 1 March 2024, the complainant submitted comments in response to the State
Party’s observations. He restated his arguments relating to the inaccessibility of domestic
remedies, the risks inherent in taking action before the Burundian courts and the fact that
the judicial outcome would probably not be satisfactory for the victim. Drawing on various
reports and decisions by international institutions,4 the complainant concludes that, in view
of the notorious failings of the Burundian judicial system, it is clear that any remedy that he
might pursue would be futile, which justifies the fact that he has not exhausted domestic
remedies.
5.2
On 30 January 2025, the complainant confirmed that he had never been brought
before a prosecuting authority during his detention at the National Intelligence Service. It
was not until 19 December 2015 that the complainant was brought before the prosecutor
with a view to transferring him to the central prison. He was questioned by a prosecutor
attached to the Bujumbura public prosecutor’s office, in the detention facility of the
National Intelligence Service. Subsequently, he was placed under arrest by the same
prosecutor and taken to Murembwe Prison in the Province of Rumonge.
5.3
At the hearing, the complainant reported the torture inflicted during his detention
and displayed the visible wounds on his body. However, the prosecuting authority took no
action in response to these revelations, which, according to the complainant, is symptomatic
of the climate of fear reigning in the country. This widespread fear affects not only the
general public but also judges, who fear reprisals from the National Intelligence Service,
backed by the upper echelons of the executive branch.
5.4
The complainant reiterates that it would be extremely dangerous for anyone to take
action against the National Intelligence Service or its agents. Anyone reporting these abuses
would face immediate reprisals, including arbitrary arrest, torture and even enforced
disappearance. This climate of terror explains why the complainant was unable to raise his
claims with domestic legal mechanisms when he left the country. Furthermore, even if a
person dared to file a complaint, he or she would not obtain an effective remedy. The
Burundian justice system is cruelly lacking in independence and is under the direct control
of the executive branch. Consequently, justice is both inaccessible and ineffective for
victims of human rights violations, particularly those involving the National Intelligence
Service.
State Party’s additional observations
6.1
On 4 March 2025, the State Party reiterated that it is a State governed by the rule of
law with an effective, efficient and independent legal framework, which, once offences of
torture committed on national territory have been referred to it, investigates, prosecutes and
punishes the perpetrators in accordance with the law.
6.2
The State Party considers that the submissions made by the complainant on
30 January 2025 are allegations unsupported by any evidence and that they contain
contradictions that cast doubt on their veracity. For example, the complainant states that the
prosecution service fails to monitor the detention facility of the National Intelligence
Service but admits that the prosecutor met him in this facility. For the State Party, this
demonstrates the falsity of the allegation concerning the failure to monitor this locality,
4 Among others, A/HRC/17/50, para. 46; 2017 conference room paper of the Commission of Inquiry on
Burundi, available on the web page of the Commission (https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-i-
burundi/co-i-burundi), paras. 195 and 626; CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 11; and African Commission on
Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 19 v. Eritrea, communication No. 275/03, decision of 30 May
2007, para. 71.
CAT/C/82/D/1100/2021
GE.2508075
5
which, according to the complainant, was outside the control of the prosecutor’s office
because it was under the auspices of the Office of the President.
6.3
Lastly, in order to contest the complainant’s allegations about the danger of using
domestic remedies to bring proceedings against agents of the National Intelligence Service,
and the inaccessibility and ineffectiveness of such remedies, the State Party produces
12 judgments and rulings,5 including 11 convictions and 1 acquittal. It declares that all
cases involving torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that are brought before the
courts and tribunals, irrespective of the perpetrators, are investigated and judged by the
competent national courts, which belies the accusation of dangerousness and also testifies
to the accessibility and effectiveness of domestic remedies for victims of human rights
violations.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
7.1
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.
7.2
The Committee notes that the State Party contested the admissibility of the
complaint on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the complainant had
not attempted to formally raise the allegations of torture with the competent authorities.
However, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations − which have been disputed
by the State Party, but without a shred of evidence − that he expressly reported the torture
to the public prosecutor on 19 December 2015, but that the authorities did not initiate an
investigation. The Committee further notes the complainant’s argument that it would have
been dangerous for him to take any further steps as the perpetrators of the acts of torture
were police officers and agents of the National Intelligence Service operating under the
Office of the President of the Republic. The Committee further notes that members of the
complainant’s family were subjected to threats and intimidation by police officers in
connection with his fate, and that he was forced into exile.
7.3
The Committee notes that the State Party merely alleged in its observations that
torture is punishable under the Criminal Code and that the complainant should take legal
action. The State Party has produced 12 final decisions handed down by national courts
concerning allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. The Committee notes that the complainant reported the torture to which he had
been subjected to the competent judicial authorities, yet no investigation was carried out.
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.6
7.4
The Committee recalls that, during its consideration of the State Party’s third
periodic report, it noted with concern that there was still no specific, independent and
5 Of these judgments and rulings, one was issued in 2020, one in 2021, two in 2023 and eight in 2024.
6 N’Dour v. Morocco (CAT/C/58/D/650/2015), para. 8.2.
CAT/C/82/D/1100/2021
6
GE.25-08075
confidential mechanism for the receipt of complaints of torture or ill-treatment and that
existing investigation bodies lacked the necessary independence, as they belonged to the
same structure that employs the alleged perpetrators.7 Secondly, the Committee notes that
the State Party makes no mention of the number of allegations of torture or ill-treatment
made before a prosecutor or judge in the course of proceedings or in a formal complaint
that have not given rise to an investigation. In its previous decisions concerning individual
communications against the State Party, the Committee has already highlighted major
shortcomings in the procedure for providing complainants with an effective remedy.8
7.5
Given the limited information provided by the State Party in this regard, the
Committee considers that it has not been established 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.9 The Committee notes that the complainant tried to use
domestic remedies but they proved to be ineffective in his case. The Committee then notes
the findings of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi concerning numerous cases of
Burundian citizens who, on returning to Burundi after having fled abroad, were subjected to
arrest, arbitrary detention, acts of torture and ill-treatment, enforced disappearance and
assassination.10 It takes note of the risks to which the complainant, his relatives or his legal
counsel might be exposed following the lodging of a complaint on his behalf,11 of the lack
of a specific and truly independent and confidential mechanism tasked with receiving
complaints of torture or ill-treatment, and of the lack of a mechanism which could enable
victims to lodge complaints from abroad. In the particular circumstances of the present case,
given the limited information provided by the State Party and the particular situation in
which the complainant finds himself, the Committee must conclude that domestic remedies
have not proved effective in his case.
7.6
Lastly, the Committee notes the complainant’s subsequent arguments, transmitted to
the Committee on 30 January 2025, concerning the violation of articles 12 and 13 of the
Convention, which he had raised in his initial communication without providing further
details as to why he considered that the State Party had violated them. 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.
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.12
8.2
The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that, at the premises of the
National Intelligence Service, he was suspended upside down by police officers, who burnt
his left arm with a tool connected to an electrical power source and made him stand
barefoot on a red carpet from which needles emerged to prick him when a button was
pressed. It also notes: (a) that the complainant’s suffering was prolonged by the lack of
appropriate care and the unsanitary conditions of detention; (b) that the police subjected
him to this treatment for three weeks, two hours per day; and (c) that he was detained in
7 CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 10.
8 For example, Nshimirimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/79/D/1039/2020), paras. 6.3 and 6.4; Ndarisigaranye
v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/493/2012/Corr.1), para. 6.3; C.N. v. Burundi
(CAT/C/60/D/579/2013), para. 6.3; Kabura v. Burundi (CAT/C/59/D/549/2013), para. 6.2; E.N. v.
Burundi (CAT/C/56/D/578/2013), para. 6.2; Ntahiraja v. Burundi (CAT/C/55/D/575/2013), para. 6.3;
and Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 7.2.
9 Nshimirimana v. Burundi, para. 6.4.
10 A/HRC/48/68, para. 40 et seq.; and the 2020 conference room paper of the Commission of Inquiry on
Burundi, available on the web page of the Commission (https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-i-
burundi/co-i-burundi), paras. 440 et seq.
11 2017 conference room paper of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, available on the web page of
the Commission (https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-i-burundi/co-i-burundi), para. 197.
12 See, inter alia, N.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/74/D/795/2017), para. 6.1.
CAT/C/82/D/1100/2021
GE.2508075
7
appalling conditions at the premises of the National Intelligence Service and was deprived
of access to medical care for three weeks. The Committee further notes that, during his
detention at the premises of the National Intelligence Service, the complainant had no
access either to a lawyer or to his family. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according
to which, in order to prevent torture, all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to be
provided promptly with independent legal assistance and medical assistance and must be
able to contact their relatives.13 The Committee likewise takes note of the complainant’s
allegations that the beatings to which he was subjected caused him severe suffering,
including emotional and psychological suffering, and were deliberately inflicted by State
officials in order to extract confessions and to intimidate and punish him. It further notes
that these allegations have not 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.14
8.3
The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that, if they cannot be classed as acts
of torture, the acts and treatment to which he was subjected constitute cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment in accordance with article 16 of the Convention. The
Committee considers that these claims relate to facts that constitute torture within the
meaning of article 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee does not consider it
necessary to examine the claims under article 16 separately.15
8.4
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 the State
Party 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.16 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations
regarding the treatment inflicted upon him by State agents during his detention at the
National Intelligence Service, throughout which time he was unable to contact his family or
have access to legal counsel or a doctor. The Committee also notes that the State Party has
not taken 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 to duly punish
those responsible, despite the complaint he had made in this regard to the prosecuting
authority. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1), read
in conjunction with article 1, of the Convention.17
8.5
The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 of the
Convention – which requires the State Party 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 – has been 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 questioning at the premises of the National Intelligence Service or
during his initial questioning before the public prosecutor; (c) he was arrested without being
informed of the charges against him; (d) he did not have access to effective remedies to
report the acts of torture; and (e) he was detained in appalling conditions at the premises of
the National Intelligence Service. The Committee recalls its concluding observations on the
second periodic report of Burundi, adopted in 2014, and those concerning the third periodic
report of Burundi, adopted in 2023, in which it expressed concern about the excessive
13 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007).
14 Ndagijimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/496/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/496/2012/Corr.1), para. 8.2;
Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.2; Kabura v. Burundi, para. 7.2; and Niyonzima v. Burundi,
para. 8.2.
15 Ramírez Martínez et al. v. Mexico (CAT/C/55/D/500/2012), para. 17.4; and Ndayirukiye v. Burundi
(CAT/C/73/D/952/2019), para. 8.3.
16 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 10; and CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 8 et seq. See also CAT/C/BDI/CO/3,
para. 21.
17 Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.4; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.3; Niyonzima v. Burundi,
para. 8.4; and E.N. v. Burundi, para. 7.5.
CAT/C/82/D/1100/2021
8
GE.25-08075
length of time during which people may be held in police custody, numerous instances in
which the allowable 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 of its legality
and of any limit on its total duration.18 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 appalling 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.19
8.6
With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the
complainant’s allegations that, in September 2014, he was tortured by police officers at the
premises of the National Intelligence Service and continued to be subjected to ill-treatment
during the three weeks of his detention. Although he reported the torture he had suffered to
the prosecuting authority on 19 December 2015, no investigation has been carried out more
than nine years after the reported events. The Committee considers that such a delay in
opening 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.20 Accordingly, the Committee finds a
violation of article 12 of the Convention.
8.7
In view of the preceding findings, the State Party has also failed in its responsibility
under article 13 of the Convention to ensure the right of the complainant to lodge a
complaint, which presupposes that the authorities will provide a satisfactory response to
such a complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation.21 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.22 The
Committee concludes that the facts of the case also constitute a violation of article 13 of the
Convention.
8.8
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 encompass, among other measures, restitution, compensation and guarantees
of non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of each case.23 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.24
18 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10; and CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 24.
19 E.N. v. Burundi, para. 7.6.
20 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.
21 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.5.
22 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.
23 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.6; and Ntikarahera v. Burundi (CAT/C/52/D/503/2012), para. 6.5. See
also CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, paras. 35 and 36.
24 Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.7.
CAT/C/82/D/1100/2021
GE.2508075
9
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 of the Convention.
10.
The Committee urges the State Party to (a) initiate a thorough and impartial
investigation into the incidents in question, taking into consideration 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) to
prosecute and punish those responsible for the complainant’s treatment; (c) to provide the
complainant with appropriate redress, including compensation for material and
non-material damages, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of
non-repetition; and (d) to ensure that no similar violations occur in the future.
11.
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.