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.25-07116 (E) 020925 030925
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 911/2019*, **
Communication submitted by:
Alexis Turikukiye (represented by TRIAL
International)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Burundi
Date of complaint:
31 December 2018 (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 30 January 2019 (not issued
in document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
10 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; prompt and
impartial investigation; treatment of prisoners;
reparation; forced confessions
Articles of the Convention:
2 (1) and 11–15, read in conjunction with
articles 1 and 16, and 16
1.1
The complainant is Alexis Turikukiye, a national of Burundi born in 1963. He claims
that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (1) and 11 to 15 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 made the declaration provided for in
article 22 (1) of the Convention on 10 June 2003. The complainant is represented by counsel.
1.2
On 30 January 2019, 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
particular as a result of the submission of the present complaint, and to keep the Committee
informed of the measures adopted to that end.
* 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/911/2019
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
21 May 2025
English
Original: French
CAT/C/82/D/911/2019
2
GE.25-07116
1.3
On 28 February 2024, the Committee, acting through its Rapporteur on new
complaints and interim measures, decided to examine the admissibility of the communication
together with its merits.
Facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant was a member of the Parti pour le redressement national (Party for
National Recovery) and worked as a broker. On 31 October 2015, he attended a funeral,
following which a procession departed the cemetery in the direction of Bujumbura. The
procession comprised three cars and a bus. Arriving around midday in the area of Buringa,
not far from Bujumbura International Airport, the procession came under fire from a police
post. Afterwards, divergent and contradictory versions of the events were presented by the
police and individuals present at the scene.
2.2
According to the police, the deceased had been the leader of an armed group that had
attacked a police post a few days earlier and had been killed in the attack. The police
reportedly attempted to stop the procession in order to search the vehicles, but someone on
the bus opened fire on the officers, while another individual tried to detonate a grenade,
forcing the police to fire back. This version of events was disputed by numerous witnesses
present at the scene, who claimed that the funeral was not for the leader of an armed group
but for a young demonstrator who had been killed by the police. Young protesters from
neighbourhoods that had been at the centre of recent protests in the country had travelled to
the cemetery to attend the funeral of one of their own. The procession was reportedly
ambushed by agents of the Riot Brigade, officers of the Combat Engineer Regiment and a
handful of Imbonerakure. 1 The police reported only one death among the procession
participants; however, according to investigations by non-governmental organizations, at
least 7 civilians were killed, while witnesses claim that between 10 and 16 people died in the
attack.2
2.3
The complainant was on the bus. When the shooting stopped, he and the around a
dozen survivors of the attack were arrested and tied up then brutally beaten. The complainant
was thrown to the ground and beaten by around twenty police officers, Imbonerakure and
National Intelligence Service agents for almost an hour, receiving blows from truncheons
and rifle butts and being kicked all over his body. He was then thrown in the back of a police
vehicle with the others and taken to the headquarters of the National Intelligence Service. On
arrival, without any form of registration, the complainant and the 12 other detainees were
placed in an unlit room measuring approximately three metres by three metres.
2.4
The complainant was tortured on his first day in detention on the premises of the
National Intelligence Service. In the evening of 31 October 2015, the complainant was
brought before a criminal investigation officer who, together with several agents of the
National Intelligence Service, conducted a violent interrogation focusing on the
complainant’s alleged membership of and role within an armed opposition group. 3 The
torturers tried to coerce the complainant into confessing that he was the leader of this group
and was responsible for teaching its members how to handle weapons and also tried to extract
information from him about other alleged members of the group. To extract answers, the
agents beat the complainant with clubs, steel rods and other implements.
2.5
To stop the torture, the complainant was forced to sign a statement. He thereby
confessed to being the leader of an armed group in which he taught weapons handling. He
also signed a police custody report listing the offences with which he had been charged. In
addition, the complainant and the 12 other defendants were made to sign a seizure report,
1 Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, 2017 conference room paper, available on the web page of the
Commission (https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-i-burundi/co-i-burundi), para. 256.
2 International Federation for Human Rights and Ligue burundaise des droits de l’homme, Repression
and genocidal dynamics in Burundi, November 2016, available at
https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/burundi_report_english-2.pdf, p. 135.
3 This armed group was allegedly founded by the leader of the political party Mouvement pour la
solidarité et la démocratie (Movement for Solidarity and Democracy).
CAT/C/82/D/911/2019
GE.25-07116
3
certifying that they recognized various items allegedly seized from vehicles in the funeral
procession, namely a rifle and a grenade.
2.6
The following day, on 1 November 2015, the complainant was subjected to another
round of interrogation, during which he was again tortured for additional information. Using
the same torture techniques as the previous day, the torturers forced the complainant to
acknowledge as his own statements that they themselves had made. At the end of the
interrogation, the National Intelligence Service officers drew up a statement claiming that the
complainant had given them the names of individuals involved in the murder of police
officers and had provided the location of a weapons cache. The complainant was forced to
sign this statement.
2.7
Although the complainant had confessed and provided information under torture, the
abuse continued unabated. He was subjected to further torture and verbal abuse for the
remainder of his detention on the premises of the National Intelligence Service, which lasted
until 5 November 2015. At least twice daily, he was beaten all over with various implements
by at least three officers. His ribs were fractured and his hearing was badly damaged. During
the six days he spent at the National Intelligence Service, he was denied all rights normally
afforded to detainees. He was neither informed of his rights nor granted legal assistance
during the interrogation sessions that took place on 31 October and 1 November 2015.
Repeated requests for medical treatment were refused. His relatives were never informed of
his detention and he received only one inadequate meal per day.
2.8
On 5 November 2015, the complainant and his co-defendants were taken to the office
of the Public Prosecution Service in Bujumbura and presented one by one to a public
prosecutor. The complainant, who was unable to stand without the help of his co-defendants,
was represented by a lawyer and notified of his rights and the charges against him. As
reflected in the record of the hearing, the complainant reported the torture to which he was
subjected during his interrogation by agents of the National Intelligence Service and the fact
that he had been forced to confess to stop the torture. As proof, he showed his numerous scars
to the public prosecutor. His lawyer requested that he be released, that his statements made
under torture be disregarded and that he be examined by a doctor.4
2.9
Following this interview, the complainant was placed in pretrial detention and
transferred to Mpimba Central Prison, where he received only limited medical care. During
the first two months of his detention, he received minor treatment for his injuries and was
given sedatives. He repeatedly approached the prison authorities to obtain authorization for
outside treatment, but to no avail. As a result, while he gradually regained his hearing, he
continued to spit blood regularly for six months after the torture. He received no treatment
for his fractured ribs. They healed over time and the complainant no longer feels pain in this
area. However, owing to the lack of adequate care, he continues to suffer from pain in his
right foot and left arm. Consequently, more than three years after his torture, he remained
unable to move around normally or stand without crutches or assistance from his fellow
prisoners.
2.10
At the time of the submission of his communication to the Committee, the
complainant had been incarcerated for over three years in appalling conditions at Mpimba
Central Prison, where prisoners are housed in cramped corridors, often without mattresses to
sleep on. The facilities are infested with insects and what little food the prisoners are given
is infested with weevils.
2.11
During the proceedings against him, including at the public hearing held on
13 November 2015 before Bujumbura Tribunal de Grande Instance (court of major
jurisdiction) and, later, at various other hearings, in the presence of a legal representative, the
complainant again reported the treatment inflicted upon him on the premises of the National
Intelligence Service. On 17 April 2016, the complainant’s counsel filed a formal complaint
with the office of the Public Prosecution Service in Bujumbura.5 It was only after three
requests had been made to the prosecutor on 20, 22 and 26 April 2016 that a case file was
4 See the record of the hearing held at the Bujumbura office of the Public Prosecution Service, dated
5 November 2015, attached to the case file.
5 A copy of this complaint is attached to the case file.
CAT/C/82/D/911/2019
4
GE.25-07116
finally opened. Requests were subsequently made for further investigative steps, but these
were unsuccessful and no action was taken by the Public Prosecution Service. Since
November 2017, the case file has been missing.
2.12
On 22 August 2018, Ntahangwa Tribunal de Grande Instance sentenced the
complainant to life imprisonment for illegal possession of a firearm and membership of an
armed gang. The complainant lodged an appeal against this conviction, but his appeal was
still pending at the time the present complaint was submitted to the Committee.
Complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (1)
and 11 to 15 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
The complainant states that although he has repeatedly reported the torture to which
he was subjected and lodged a formal complaint in that regard, no action has been taken by
the Public Prosecution Service. Almost three years after the events and two and a half years
after the complaint was lodged, the Public Prosecution Service had taken no investigative
measures and, although a case file was opened, no medical examination had been conducted
and no one had been questioned. Worse still, the case file has been missing since November
2017, despite numerous requests for access made to the Public Prosecution Service in
November and December 2017 and March 2018. The complainant argues that this
unreasonable delay justifies his failure to exhaust domestic remedies, which have proved
ineffective and futile.
3.3
According to the complainant, the abuse to which he was subjected caused him acute
physical and psychological pain and suffering. These acts of torture, which were intentionally
inflicted on him by agents of the National Police Force and the National Intelligence Service,
were intended to extract information from him about his alleged membership of and role
within an armed opposition group. The complainant claims that this abuse amounts to torture
within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.
3.4
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. Following his arrest, the complainant was taken into custody on the premises of
the National Intelligence Service, without any official record of his detention. For the
duration of his detention on the premises of the National Intelligence Service, he did not
receive adequate care and was unable to contact his relatives. The complainant was not
assisted by a lawyer during the two interrogation sessions held at the National Intelligence
Service. Despite amendments to the Criminal Code, torture remains subject to a 20- or
30-year statute of limitations, posing a legal obstacle to its effective prevention. Moreover,
despite the complainant’s reports, the State Party has not fulfilled its obligation to investigate
the acts of torture to which he claims to have been subjected and to bring the persons
responsible for these acts to justice. Accordingly, the complainant submits that the State Party
has failed to take the measures, including the legislative measures, required under article 2 (1)
of the Convention.
3.5
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, inter alia, in the following facts: at the
time of his arrest the complainant was not notified of his rights; during his detention on the
premises of the National Intelligence Service, he was unable to exercise his visiting rights;
he was not assisted by a lawyer during the two interrogation sessions; he did not receive
healthcare until he was transferred to Mpimba Central Prison; he did not have access to
effective remedies to address the acts of torture to which he was subjected; and he was and
continues to be detained in appalling conditions.
CAT/C/82/D/911/2019
GE.25-07116
5
3.6
The complainant claims that although the Burundian authorities were informed of the
torture to which he had been subjected, as he had reported it to agents of the National
Intelligence Service, the investigating judge, the trial judges and the staff of Mpimba Central
Prison and had lodged a formal complaint on 17 April 2016, they did not conduct a prompt
and effective investigation into his allegations, in violation of the State Party’s obligations
under article 12 of the Convention. The complainant also claims that the State Party did not
respect his right to submit a complaint to and have his case promptly and impartially
examined by its competent authorities, in breach of its obligations under article 13 of the
Convention.
3.7
With regard to article 14 of the Convention, the complainant is of the view 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 non-application of the article of the Code of Criminal Procedure
providing for compensation for victims of torture, in violation of article 14 of the
Convention. 6 In 2016, it reiterated its concerns about the need to guarantee adequate
compensation in accordance with article 14.7
3.8
The complainant further alleges that the State Party also violated article 15 of the
Convention. He was clearly subjected to torture for the purpose of extracting a confession,
as evidenced by the fact that the torture ceased only once he signed police-prepared
statements under duress. These coerced confessions formed the basis of his prosecution for
illegal possession of a firearm and membership of an armed gang. The circumstances under
which the statements were obtained have never been investigated and the confessions he
made were not rendered invalid. On the contrary, they were used in the court of first instance
to convict him.
3.9
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. In addition, the
complainant points out that the appalling conditions of detention in the cells of the National
Intelligence Service, where he was denied any medical care, and in Mpimba Central Prison,
where he continues to be held, in and of themselves constitute 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. 8 He
therefore concludes that the conditions of detention to which he was and continues to be
exposed amount to a violation of article 16 of the Convention.
State Party’s observations on admissibility
4.
In its observations of 26 August 2022, submitted to the Committee on 10 October
2022, the State Party challenged the admissibility of the communication. It argues that the
Committee should reject the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, since
the complainant’s case, which was opened following the submission of his criminal
complaint of 17 April 2016, is still under investigation. According to the State Party, the
complainant has decided to boycott the domestic proceedings without justification. It rejects
the complainant’s allegation that domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged and
6 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 18.
7 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 27 (d).
8 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 17, and CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 15.
CAT/C/82/D/911/2019
6
GE.25-07116
asserts that the complainant’s case is being investigated according to ordinary procedure
under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.
The complainant submitted his comments on the State Party’s observations on
admissibility on 14 December 2022. He notes that the State Party’s claims, which were
submitted after the deadline, are not supported by any evidence whatsoever that the
investigation is under way, even though the State Party alone is able to produce such material
as documents relating to the investigation, records and minutes of meetings. It is therefore
legitimate to call into question the very existence of any such investigation. Moreover, even
if an investigation had been under way since April 2016, a period of six years and seven
months to carry out investigative measures far exceeds a reasonable time frame. The State
Party provides no explanation as to why such a length of time should be considered
reasonable, nor does it contest any of the complainant’s arguments concerning the
ineffectiveness of domestic remedies.
State Party’s additional observations on the merits
6.
The State Party submitted its observations on the merits on 19 April 2024. It points
out that the restoration of law and order in the context of the sociopolitical crisis ongoing in
Burundi since 26 April 2015 has been the country’s priority. The State Party is currently
experiencing a surge in efforts to promote economic development and strengthen the rule of
law. In this context, the impartial and independent investigation of the complainant’s case,
which had been delayed by the crisis, will be relaunched.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s additional observations
7.
The complainant submitted his comments on the State Party’s observations on the
merits on 3 December 2024. He notes that the State Party provides no substantive comments
on the merits of the case.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
8.1
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.
8.2
The Committee notes that the State Party has contested the admissibility of the
complaint on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the complainant did not
await the outcome of the investigation opened following his complaint of 17 April 2016,
which is still under way. It 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 are reasonable grounds 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
apparently not been done in the present case, nine years after the complaint was filed. 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
CAT/C/82/D/911/2019
GE.25-07116
7
have been sufficiently substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations
from the State Party to the contrary.9
8.3
In the absence of relevant information from the State Party concerning any
investigative action taken in response to the complainant’s formal complaint, the Committee
cannot accept the State Party’s objection to the admissibility of the complaint.
8.4
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) and 11 to 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.10
9.2
The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that, at the time of his arrest, he
was violently beaten by police officers for nearly an hour, receiving blows from truncheons
and rifle butts and being kicked across his body. It also notes that: (a) his suffering was
exacerbated by the lack of adequate care and the unsanitary conditions of detention on the
premises of the National Intelligence Service; (b) officers of the National Intelligence Service
repeatedly beat him with clubs and iron rods; and (c) he was detained in appalling conditions
on the premises of the National Intelligence Service and denied access to medical care for six
days before being transferred to Mpimba Central Prison, where he continues to be detained
in terrible conditions. The Committee also notes that according to the complainant, during
the six days he spent in detention on the premises of the National Intelligence Service, he
was denied access to a lawyer and his family. The Committee recalls that according to its
jurisprudence, to prevent torture, all persons deprived of liberty have the right to be provided
promptly with independent legal and medical assistance and must be allowed to contact their
relatives.11 The Committee likewise notes the complainant’s allegations that the beatings
caused him severe suffering, including emotional and psychological suffering, and were
deliberately inflicted by State officials in order to extract confessions from him and to
intimidate and punish him. It further notes that these allegations have not been contested by
the State Party. In the light of these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the facts as
presented by the complainant constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the
Convention.12
9.3
The Committee notes the complainant’s claims under 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
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.13
In the present case, the Committee also notes the complainant’s allegations regarding his
treatment by State agents during his arrest and subsequent detention on the premises of the
National Intelligence Service, throughout which he was forbidden to contact his family and
denied access to legal counsel and a doctor. The Committee further 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 to which the complainant was subjected or to apply
9 N’Dour v. Morocco (CAT/C/58/D/650/2015), para. 8.2.
10 See, inter alia, N.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/74/D/795/2017), para. 6.1.
11 See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007).
12 Ndagijimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/496/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/496/2012/Corr.1), para. 8.2,
Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/493/2012/Corr.1), 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.
13 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 10, and CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, paras. 8 et seq. See also CAT/C/BDI/CO/3,
para. 21.
CAT/C/82/D/911/2019
8
GE.25-07116
appropriate penalties, despite the allegations he made in this regard to the investigating judge
and subsequently in a formal complaint and before the courts. In this respect, the Committee
notes that although the complainant’s formal complaint led to the opening of an investigation,
this investigation is still being pursued nine years later, without the State Party demonstrating
that any investigative measures have been taken. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee
finds a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1, of the Convention.14
9.4
The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 of the
Convention, which requires the State Party 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, with a view
to preventing torture, has been violated. The complainant claims, in particular, that:
(a) despite the severity of his condition at the moment of his arrest and after the two rounds
of interrogation on 31 October and 1 November 2015, he did not receive medical care; (b) he
did not have access to a lawyer during these two rounds of interrogation on the premises of
the National Intelligence Service; (c) he was arrested without being informed of the charges
against him; (d) he did not have access to effective remedies to address the acts of torture;
and (e) he was detained in appalling conditions on the premises of the National Intelligence
Service and continues to be detained in such conditions in Mpimba Central Prison. The
Committee recalls its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Burundi,
adopted in 2014, and those on the third periodic report of Burundi, adopted in 2023, in which
it expressed concern about the excessive 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 and to ensure that such records
are complete, failures to comply with fundamental legal safeguards for persons deprived of
liberty, the absence of provisions that ensure access to a doctor and 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.15 In the absence of any relevant
information to the contrary from the State Party and considering the information submitted
by the complainant, namely that at the time of his deprivation of liberty he was not informed
of his rights, that during his detention on the premises of the National Intelligence Service he
was not allowed to receive visits, that he was not assisted by a lawyer during the two
interrogation sessions, that he received no medical treatment before being transferred to
Mpimba Central Prison, that effective remedies were not available to address the acts of
torture to which he was subjected and that he has been and continues to be detained in
appalling conditions, the Committee considers that the State Party has failed in its obligation
to exercise the systematic review required by article 11 of the Convention and that this failure
has resulted in harm to the complainant. The Committee therefore finds a violation of
article 11 of the Convention.16
9.5
With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the
complainant’s allegations that on 31 October 2015 he was arrested and violently beaten by a
group of around twenty uniformed police officers, tortured during two rounds of interrogation
on the premises of the National Intelligence Service and has continued to be subjected to
ill-treatment throughout his detention. Although he reported this torture to the investigating
judge on 5 November 2015 and subsequently to the trial judges and in a formal complaint
and appeared in court with visible signs of torture, an investigation was opened only after he
lodged a formal complaint in April 2016 and no investigative action has been taken after nine
years. The Committee is of the view that such a long delay in opening and conducting 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 are reasonable grounds to
believe that an act of torture has been committed.17 In the absence of any concrete evidence
14 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.
15 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10, and CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 24.
16 Nshimirimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/79/D/1039/2020), para. 8.4.
17 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.
CAT/C/82/D/911/2019
GE.25-07116
9
from the State Party that an investigation has been carried out, the Committee finds a
violation of article 12 of the Convention.
9.6
In view of the preceding findings, the State Party has also failed in its responsibility
under article 13 of the Convention to uphold the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint
and to have his case considered promptly and impartially by the competent authorities.18 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. 19 The Committee also notes that despite the opening of an investigation
following the complainant’s submission of a formal complaint, the State Party has not
provided any concrete information demonstrating that any investigative measures have been
taken in relation to the complaint, even after nine years. The Committee concludes that the
facts of the case also constitute a violation of article 13 of the Convention.
9.7
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.20 In the
present case, given 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.21
9.8
With regard to article 15 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the
complainant’s claim that the judicial proceedings against him and his subsequent conviction
on 22 August 2018 for illegal possession of a firearm and membership of an armed gang were
based on confessions extracted under torture on 31 October and 1 November 2015. The State
Party has provided no arguments against this claim. The Committee recalls that the generality
of the terms of article 15 of the Convention derives from the absolute nature of the prohibition
of torture and therefore implies an obligation for every State Party to verify that statements
included in proceedings under its jurisdiction were not made under torture.22 The Committee
notes that the complainant brought to the attention of the judicial authorities on numerous
occasions the ill-treatment to which he was subjected, without success. The State Party,
which does not refute any of the complainant’s claims, had an obligation to verify the
substance of the author’s claim that his confessions had been obtained through torture. By
failing to carry out such verifications and by using these confessions in the judicial
proceedings against him, the State Party violated its obligations under article 15 of the
Convention 23 and continues to violate these obligations by keeping the complainant in
detention on the basis of this conviction.
9.9
Regarding the claim made under article 16 of the Convention, the Committee has
taken note of the complainant’s allegations concerning the detention conditions in the cells
of the National Intelligence Service and in Mpimba Central Prison. In the absence of any
relevant information from the State Party, the Committee concludes that the information
provided demonstrates that these conditions constitute inhuman and degrading treatment24
18 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.5.
19 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.
20 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.6, See also Ntikarahera v. Burundi (CAT/C/52/D/503/2012), para. 6.5.
21 Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.7.
22 Ktiti v. Morocco (CAT/C/46/D/419/2010), para. 8.8, P.E. v. France (CAT/C/29/D/193/2001),
para. 6.3, and Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.7.
23 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.7, and A.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/60/D/612/2014), para. 7.10.
24 See also CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 29.
CAT/C/82/D/911/2019
10
GE.25-07116
and discloses a violation by the State Party of its obligations under article 16 of the
Convention.25
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) and 11 to 15, read in conjunction
with article 1, and of article 16 of the Convention.
11.
The Committee urges the State Party to: (a) thoroughly and impartially complete the
ongoing investigation into the allegations of torture, ensuring it is conducted by an
independent body and takes due account of the guidance 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 treatment to which the complainant was subjected; (c) quash the
complainant’s conviction and order his immediate release; (d) provide the complainant with
appropriate redress, including compensation for material and non-material damage,
restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition; and (e) 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.
25 Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.8, Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.8, and Ntikarahera v. Burundi,
para. 6.6.