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.25-08766 (E) 170625 200625
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1105/2021*, **
Communication submitted by:
E.N. (represented by counsel, Jeanne d’Arc
Zaninyana)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Burundi
Date of complaint:
8 October 2021 (initial submission)
Document references:
Decision taken pursuant to rule 115 of the
Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to
the State Party on 29 November 2021 (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 local remedies
Substantive issues:
Torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment; prompt and impartial
investigation; redress
Articles of the Convention:
1, 2 (1), 12, 14 and 16
1.
The complainant is E.N., a national of Burundi born in 1993. He claims that the State
Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (1), 12 and 14 of the Convention, read in
conjunction with article 1 or, in the alternative, with article 16. The State Party made the
declaration under article 22 (1) of the Convention on 10 June 2003. The complainant is
represented by counsel.
Facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant was a student living in the municipality of Mutakura, in Bujumbura
Mairie. On 21 January 2016, he was on his way home from school with his younger brother
when they realized that their neighbourhood was under attack by police. Police officers and
soldiers were looking for young people suspected of belonging to armed gangs and taking
part in demonstrations against President Pierre Nkurunziza’s third term in office. As they
fled towards their home, they were noticed by five uniformed police officers, who followed
* 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/1105/2021
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
11 June 2025
English
Original: French
CAT/C/82/D/1105/2021
2
GE.25-08766
them and forced the door open to get inside. The brothers then tried to escape through the
back of the house by jumping over a wall. One of the police officers shot at the complainant,
who was hit in the leg. His tibia was broken and he fell into the neighbouring property and
hid in the bathroom, where he shouted for help, believing that the police were no longer
nearby. Meanwhile, the police followed and caught his brother, beat him and shot him dead.1
2.2
Following the complainant’s cries for help, the same police officers found him in the
bathroom where he was hiding. He told them he was injured and needed medical attention.
Instead of helping him, the officers left him, telling each other not to waste any more bullets
on him and that it was better to let him bleed to death. When the officers left, neighbours
called Médecins sans frontières for help. Thanks to the Red Cross, the complainant
underwent surgery and the bullet was removed from his leg.2 He was then evacuated by his
family to a neighbouring country, where he is seeking asylum.
2.3
A medical and psychological assessment of the complainant, dated 24 June 2021,
attests to his injuries and the fact that he is traumatized by his brother’s death. According to
doctors, he will never regain his former abilities, will never walk as he used to and will never
be able to undertake work that requires him to stand, carry heavy loads or run.
2.4
The complainant has not attempted to use domestic remedies as there are none
available to him and to do so would be dangerous against the backdrop of serious human
rights violations in Burundi. He has remained outside Burundi since 2016 for fear of
persecution and is unable to return. Many victims in Burundi do not lodge complaints for
fear of reprisals or lack of confidence in the functioning and independence of the judicial
system.3 Furthermore, the police in Burundi4 enjoy impunity and it would be dangerous for
him to return and launch legal proceedings.
Complaint
3.1
The complainant asserts that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (1),
12 and 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 1 or, in the alternative, with
article 16. His having been shot constitutes excessive use of force, in particular lethal force,
and therefore amounts to torture, since such use of force was not legal, necessary or
proportional and did not respect the precautionary principle.5 The shooting was illegal under
article 84 of Ordinance No. 215/891 of 9 July 2009 on the Code of Ethics of the Burundian
National Police. In addition, the police failed in its duty to provide him with medical
assistance, as set out in article 85 of the Ordinance. The aim was to punish him because he
lived in a supposedly anti-establishment neighbourhood. In addition to the physical suffering
inflicted on him, which has permanently affected his ability to walk, the complainant has also
endured mental suffering, having been left without medical assistance and following the loss
of his brother.
3.2
The complainant argues that no mechanism was available to him through which to
lodge a complaint concerning the actions of the police officers. Moreover, no internal police
body investigated the officers’ actions, in violation of article 2 (1) of the Convention. Despite
the reform of the Criminal Code, torture remains subject to a statute of limitations of 20 or
30 years, which constitutes a legal obstacle to the effective prevention of acts of torture.
3.3
The complainant maintains that the mere fact that the police officers used lethal
weapons should have given rise to a police investigation into the legitimacy, necessity and
proportionality of their actions in order to establish not only the reasons for them, but above
all to verify whether they had acted within the bounds of the law. To date, no investigation
has been launched, and none of the perpetrators of the attack have been identified or
1 In a social media post dated 22 January 2016, the information platform SOS Médias Burundi reported
the complainant’s injuries and the death of his brother and criticized the fact that an investigation was
not launched immediately.
2 The complainant subsequently underwent multiple surgical procedures, including the placement of an
external fixator, a skin graft and an autologous bone graft.
3 See 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).
4 See CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1.
5 A/72/178, para. 5.
CAT/C/82/D/1105/2021
GE.25-08766
3
prosecuted. The complainant asserts that there has been an excessive delay in this respect.
He claims that these facts constitute a violation of article 12 of the Convention. Furthermore,
the lack of a trial deprived him of the possibility of obtaining compensation. He has received
no compensation or rehabilitation, in violation of article 14 of the Convention.
3.4
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 asserts 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 so. The State Party should
also make good any damage caused by such treatment.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 21 February 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 use domestic remedies to obtain justice. The State
Party explains that the offence of torture carries a heavy punishment pursuant to article 138
of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes torture and sets out the mandatory minimum
penalties for it. Article 206 of the Code describes what constitutes torture in the criminal
sense of the term, and article 207 sets out the relevant penalties.
4.2
On the merits, the State Party rejects all the complainant’s allegations, characterizing
them as crude lies clearly fabricated with the sole aim of tarnishing the State Party’s
international image. It explains that since 2015, the whole world has witnessed the bloody
demonstrations organized by residents of certain neighbourhoods of the city of Bujumbura,
including Mutakura, who illegally obtained firearms to use in protests against what they
described as the then President’s illegal third term in office. These demonstrations were so
violent that they turned into a bloody insurrection movement and resulted in numerous deaths
and injuries among the defence and security forces as they performed their day-to-day duty
of maintaining order and security.
4.3
In addition to the defence and security forces who were shot at, several civilians also
fell victim to bullets fired by armed demonstrators, most of whom were dressed in clothing
similar to that worn by members of the National Police or the National Defence Force. The
civilian victims included people who did not support the insurrection movement and people
who were shot as part of the settling of scores between certain demonstrators.
4.4
The State Party formally denies any involvement of officers of the defence and
security forces in the events reported by the complainant. The violence organized by the
armed demonstrators had reached such a scale that the defence and security forces were
unable to enter the neighbourhoods, including Mutakura, where the leaders of the insurrection
movement were sheltering. In short, the defence and security forces did not cause the
complainant’s injuries or witness them being inflicted and were not involved in the murder
of his brother.
4.5
With regard to the lack of investigation, the State Party asserts that the complainant
bears responsibility for it, insofar as he preferred to go abroad without bothering to report to
the competent authorities the facts of which he claims to be a victim.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.1
On 14 June 2022, the complainant submitted comments in response to the State
Party’s observations. He does not contest the de jure criminalization of torture in the legal
arsenal of Burundi but does claim that it is de facto ineffective and inaccessible.
5.2
Furthermore, in its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Burundi,
the Committee expressed concern about the slow pace and limited scope of investigations
and prosecutions, which would appear to corroborate claims that impunity is enjoyed by the
CAT/C/82/D/1105/2021
4
GE.25-08766
perpetrators of acts of torture and extrajudicial killings, including those involving the
Burundian National Police and the National Intelligence Service.6
5.3
In the complainant’s view, the failure of the judicial system and the persistent climate
of abuse and impunity mean that any remedy he might have sought would have been futile,
thus justifying the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. At the time of the events, the State
Party was in the midst of a crisis, and its judicial system was dysfunctional and repressive
towards people from certain neighbourhoods in Bujumbura, including Cibitoke and
Mutakura. Widespread organized repression prompted many people, including the
complainant, to flee into exile to protect their lives. Torture and ill-treatment were a daily
occurrence, in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Code invoked by the State Party.
Many cases of torture, summary executions and enforced disappearances have still not been
brought to trial.
5.4
The complainant states that it would be particularly dangerous for him to return to
Burundi to initiate domestic proceedings given that he fled the country to save his life. He
notes that the State Party does not point to any guarantees offered by the Burundian judicial
system with regard to the safety and protection of persons, particularly those returning from
exile, who wish to bring a claim before it.
5.5
The complainant refers to cases in which the Human Rights Committee held that
complainants did not have to exhaust domestic remedies if it was dangerous to do so.7 The
complainant recalls that he was subjected to acts of torture at the hands of officers of the
Burundian National Police, who enjoy total impunity. The Committee has previously
considered that the impunity that the perpetrators of violations have enjoyed in Burundi since
the political crisis began in April 2015 presents an additional barrier to the bringing of legal
proceedings by victims and their families.8 In addition, as officers of the National Police, the
complainant’s torturers might have at their disposal a large arsenal of pressure tactics and
numerous contacts ready to carry out possible reprisals against the complainant or his
relatives.
5.6
The complainant argues that by claiming that the lack of investigation was due to the
failure to report the facts, the State Party is ignoring its obligations both under its own
legislation and under article 12 of the Convention, which states that it is not necessary for a
complaint to be lodged before a State Party initiates an investigation.
5.7
The complainant recalls that the Committee has already declared admissible several
communications from Burundian complainants who had considered that the remedies would
probably not be satisfactory, notably because of the refusal of the Burundian authorities to
conduct an investigation.9
5.8
On the merits, the complainant notes that the State Party asserts that civilians were
killed by persons wearing uniforms resembling those of the National Police or the National
Defence Force but does not indicate that it has investigated these facts, whereas numerous
reports by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations assert that militias known
as Imbonerakure acted with the acquiescence, or even at the instigation, of the authorities.
The Imbonerakure, either acting alone or in joint operations to support the security forces,
were involved in some cases of arrest, torture or execution, including cases where police and
National Intelligence Service uniforms were used. In addition, numerous investigative
reports by the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and non-governmental
organizations confirm the daily presence of the Burundian police and security forces in the
Cibitoke and Mutakura districts of Bujumbura. The State Party’s assertions, for which it has
provided no supporting proof or investigative reports, that such forces were not present in
these neighbourhoods cannot therefore be considered valid.
6 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 11.
7 Phillip v. Trinidad and Tobago (CCPR/C/64/D/594/1992), para. 6.4; Avadanov and Avadanova v.
Azerbaijan (CCPR/C/100/D/1633/2007), para. 6.4; and Traoré v. Côte d’Ivoire
(CCPR/C/103/D/1759/2008), para. 6.5.
8 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 26.
9 Ntahiraja v. Burundi (CAT/C/55/D/575/2013), para. 6.3; and A.N. v. Burundi
(CAT/C/60/D/612/2014), para. 6.2.
CAT/C/82/D/1105/2021
GE.25-08766
5
Additional observations by the parties
The complainant
6.1
On 7 January 2025, the complainant provided explanations as to why it was
impossible for him to lodge a complaint. He notes, firstly, that in 2016, when he was forced
to flee into exile to protect his life, the State Party was in the midst of a major political crisis
marked by widespread repression orchestrated by the authorities against the inhabitants of
certain neighbourhoods in Bujumbura, notably Cibitoke and Mutakura. These
neighbourhoods were the epicentre of the 2015 protests against President Pierre Nkurunziza’s
controversial third term in office. As a resident of Cibitoke, the complainant in particular was
targeted because of unfounded suspicions that he belonged to an armed gang, an accusation
often used by the security forces to justify raids, arbitrary arrests and violence.
6.2
Having been seriously injured during these events, the complainant was unable to
lodge a complaint concerning the acts of torture and ill-treatment he had suffered due to the
absence of any protection for victims in Burundi and the increased risk of reprisals. Since his
exile, the complainant has been granted refugee status, which demonstrates the international
authorities’ recognition of his well-founded personal fears should he return to his country.
His refugee status makes it all the more impossible for him to return to Burundi, where the
situation remains dangerous for those perceived as opponents of the current regime.
6.3
The complainant notes that between 2017 and 2021, the Commission of Inquiry on
Burundi recorded numerous cases of Burundian citizens who, on returning to Burundi after
having fled abroad for even a short time, were subjected to serious rights violations including
arrest, arbitrary detention, acts of torture and ill-treatment, enforced disappearance and
assassination. These exiled citizens were targeted because they are accused of involvement
with armed opposition groups simply for having travelled abroad.10
6.4
The complainant asserts that, to his knowledge, there is no mechanism to allow
victims to exercise remedies from abroad. In any case, he would not have been able to do so
given the risk of reprisals for his relatives back home, as well as for himself. The Commission
of Inquiry on Burundi has documented cases of exiled victims expressing feelings of
insecurity even outside Burundi, particularly in Kenya, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo and the United Republic of Tanzania, where some claimed to have recognized
agents of the National Intelligence Service and the Imbonerakure. The Commission has
gathered testimonies from refugees who have received threats in anonymous telephone calls
or written messages and have even been physically attacked.11
6.5
Furthermore, the State Party has no truly effective structure for protecting victims of
human rights violations. Although Act No. 1/04 of 27 June 2016, which is supposed to protect
victims, witnesses and others at risk, exists on paper, it remains ineffective in practice. On
this point, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in the operative section
of a recent decision in which it found against the State Party, called on the State to ensure
full application of the Act.12 The mechanisms provided for by the Act are not operational or
are circumvented, leaving victims of torture and ill-treatment with no real recourse. Any
attempt to lodge a complaint exposes not only the victim, but also those close to him or her,
to violent reprisals by the authorities or the perpetrators of the violations. This situation
creates a climate of impunity that discourages victims from seeking justice.
6.6
The complainant explains that he has lost both parents. His closest relatives, namely
his brother and sister, also had to flee Burundi to escape repression. His family’s exile renders
his situation even more precarious and his relatives who have had to leave the country even
more vulnerable. Other relatives of his who remain in Burundi face a constant risk of reprisals
10 A/HRC/48/68, paras. 40 et seq.; and 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 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Family of Feu Jackson Ndikuriyo v.
Burundi, communication No. 473/14, decision, 2 August 2022.
CAT/C/82/D/1105/2021
6
GE.25-08766
from the authorities. In a context where the authorities systematically monitor and target the
families of dissidents or victims, any attempt to obtain justice would expose them to arbitrary
arrest, torture or other forms of violence.
6.7
The complainant claims that the 2015 political crisis, which was marked by violent
repression of dissent, exacerbated the climate of physical and psychological violence and the
authorities’ intimidation of human rights defenders in Burundi. Since then, human rights
defenders, including lawyers, have faced increasing threats, which explains why the
complainant was unable to lodge a complaint through a legal representative in Burundi. Many
lawyers were forced to flee the country to save their own lives and those of their loved ones.
Among them is the counsel representing the complainant for the purposes of the present
communication, whose commitment to defending human rights has exposed her to serious
risks. Like many other defenders, she had to make the difficult decision to leave the country
to escape political persecution. However, even in exile she was not spared: she continued to
receive threats, forcing her into a second exile to guarantee her safety.
6.8
The complainant concludes that, given the impossibility of obtaining justice at the
national level due to the systematic repression, lack of protection and impunity that
characterize the Burundian judicial system, the only option left to victims of human rights
violations and human rights defenders is to resort to international human rights protection
mechanisms.
State Party
7.1
On 4 February 2025, the State Party provided clarifications regarding the
effectiveness of domestic remedies for allegations of torture. It first outlines the legislative
and institutional human rights framework and then sets out statistics on final decisions
handed down over a period of five years by domestic courts in cases of torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. To this end, the State Party read the reports
submitted by the National Independent Human Rights Commission since 2019 and the report
provided by the criminal investigation police. Visits were then conducted to all the appeal
courts competent to try certain categories of persons who enjoy exemption from jurisdiction
and to all the high courts competent to try such offences in the first instance in respect of
persons who do not enjoy exemption from jurisdiction.13
7.2
According to the table of statistics submitted by the State Party, between 2020 and
2024, 12 judgments and orders were handed down,14 with 11 convictions and 1 acquittal.15
According to the State Party’s interpretation, it appears that, over the five years, the average
annual conviction rate in cases of torture is 85.82 per cent, while the acquittal rate is 14.18
per cent.
7.3
For the State Party, the statistics show that all cases of torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment documented by the National Independent Human Rights Commission
and all cases investigated by the criminal investigation police since 2019 have been tried and
ruled on by the competent courts, with an annual conviction rate of 85.82 per cent, testifying
to the effectiveness of domestic remedies for allegations of torture.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
8.1
Before considering any claim 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.
13 The State Party provides a list of the courts of appeal and high courts visited.
14 Of the 12 judgments and orders, one was issued in 2020 and one in 2021, while none were issued in
2022, two in 2023 and eight in 2024.
15 The State Party has provided copies of the 12 judgments and orders.
CAT/C/82/D/1105/2021
GE.25-08766
7
8.2
In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not
consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual
has exhausted all available domestic remedies. In the present case, it notes the State Party’s
argument that the complainant did not even attempt to raise the allegations of torture before
the competent authorities. The Committee notes the complainant’s explanation that it would
be dangerous for him to return to Burundi to initiate domestic proceedings, given that he fled
the country to save his life. The complainant asserts that it would also be dangerous for his
relatives who remain in Burundi or for a legal representative to initiate such proceedings,
given the risk of reprisals by the authorities. Adding that he is unaware of any mechanism
enabling a victim to exercise remedies from abroad, the complainant concludes that the
remedies are ineffective and inaccessible. The State Party, for its part, has submitted statistics
on final decisions handed down over a period of five years by domestic courts concerning
allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
8.3
The Committee notes that the complainant did not attempt to communicate his
grievances to the competent national authorities. It recalls that, under article 22 (5) (b) of the
Convention, it can consider a case submitted to it only after it has ascertained that all available
domestic remedies have been exhausted. The same article provides for two exceptions; in the
present case, the relevant exception pertains to the application of remedies being unlikely to
bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of the Convention.
8.4
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 confidential
mechanism for the receipt of complaints of torture or ill-treatment in all places of deprivation
of liberty and that existing investigation bodies lacked the necessary independence, as they
belonged to the same structure that employs the alleged perpetrators.16 The Committee notes
with concern that while it had taken note of the many consistent, ongoing allegations of
torture and ill-treatment,17 according to the State Party’s statistics, only one case went to trial
in 2020, one in 2021, none in 2022 and two in 2023. In addition, 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.18
8.5
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.19 It 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. 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, of the lack of a specific and truly independent and confidential mechanism tasked
with receiving complaints of torture or ill-treatment, and of the absence 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.
16 CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 10.
17 Ibid.
18 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, para. 6.3; and Niyonzima v.
Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 7.2.
19 Nshimirimana v. Burundi, para. 6.4.
CAT/C/82/D/1105/2021
8
GE.25-08766
8.6
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), 12, 14 and 16 of the Convention.
Consideration of the merits
9.1
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.20
9.2
The Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that five police officers chased
him, that he was shot by one of them and that they abandoned him without providing any
assistance. In this respect, the Committee takes note of the medical documents attesting to
his gunshot wound and its subsequent impact on his health. The Committee then takes note
of the complainant’s allegation that his brother was murdered during the same incident. It
also takes note of the complainant’s allegations that the bullet that hit him had been fired
intentionally by State agents, who did not assist him with his injuries in order to intimidate
and punish him. It also notes that although the State Party has contested this version of events,
it has not produced any evidence that these allegations were investigated despite the fact that
the complainant’s brother was killed during the same incident. 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.21
9.3
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.22
9.4
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.23 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations
about the treatment inflicted on him by State officials during a chase and about the fact that
he was unable to have immediate access to a doctor for treatment for his gunshot wound. The
Committee also notes that the State Party has not taken any measures to protect the
complainant. Lastly, the State authorities have not taken any steps to investigate the acts of
torture suffered by the complainant and impose the appropriate punishment, even on the
assumption that the State Party first became aware of the complainant’s allegations at the
time of the transmission of the present communication on 29 November 2021. In the light of
the foregoing, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article
1, of the Convention.24
9.5
With regard to article 12 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the
complainant’s allegations that on 21 January 2016, five uniformed police officers chased him,
20 See, inter alia, N.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/74/D/795/2017), para. 6.1.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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/1105/2021
GE.25-08766
9
beat and killed his brother, shot him in the leg and left him to die from his injuries. Even
supposing that the State Party became aware of these events only when the present
communication was transmitted to it on 29 November 2021, there has been no investigation
nine years after the events and more than three years after the transmission of the present
complaint. 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.25 Accordingly, the Committee finds a violation of article 12 of
the Convention.
9.6
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.26 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.27
10.
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), 12 and 14, read in conjunction
with article 1, of the Convention.
11.
The Committee urges the State Party to: (a) initiate a thorough and impartial
investigation into the incidents in question, led by an independent body and taking into
account the guidelines set out in 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 similar violations do not occur in the
future, taking into account the efforts that the State Party reports having made in this area
and the statistics it has provided.28
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.
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. 8.6. See also Ntikarahera v. Burundi, (CAT/C/52/D/503/2012), para. 6.5.
27 Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.7.
28 See paragraph 7.2 above.