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.25-07582 (E) 200625 230625
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 957/2019*, **
Communication submitted by:
Egide Nkunzimana (represented by counsel, Jean
Claude Ntiburumunsi and Divine Ntiranyuhura)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Burundi
Date of complaint:
28 June 2019 (initial submission)
Document references:
Decision taken pursuant to rule 115 of the
Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to
the State Party on 25 September 2019 (not issued
in document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
11 April 2025
Subject matter:
Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment; lack of effective
investigation and redress
Procedural issue:
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Substantive issues:
Torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment; prevention of torture; prompt and
impartial investigation; treatment of prisoners;
redress
Articles of the Convention:
2 (1) and 11–14, read in conjunction with 1 and
16, and 16
1.1
The complainant is Egide Nkunzimana, a national of Burundi born in 1977. 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 made the declaration under article 22 (1) of
the Convention on 10 June 2003. The complainant is represented by counsel.
1.2
On 27 January 2023, the State Party requested the Committee to consider the
admissibility of the communication separately from the merits. On 26 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.
* 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/957/2019
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
22 May 2025
English
Original: French
CAT/C/82/D/957/2019
2
GE.25-07582
Facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
On 27 December 2015 at 3 a.m., two vehicles full of uniformed police officers under
the command of Captains D.U. and F.N. and another member of the army – all recognized
taking part in operations to repress political opponents – surrounded the complainant’s home
and broke in by scaling the walls. The complainant was forced to open the door. He was
arrested, his arms were tied behind his back and he was loaded into the van of Captain F.N.
in a prone position and stamped on by the police officers.
2.2
The complainant was taken in the middle of the night to an unknown destination. He
arrived at a place where he was severely beaten on his back and legs by Captain F.N., who
demanded that he tell them where the weapons had been hidden. The complainant denied any
involvement in the weapons-related affair. In order to extract a confession from him, the
Captain ordered that he be injected with chemicals by syringe. The injection of the unknown
chemicals into his arms caused burns and a gradual loss of strength. To show him that he was
risking his life, they then brought him a decapitated head and told him that, if he did not agree
to cooperate, his head would be cut off just as had been done to that person, who had resisted.
After around an hour of this treatment, the complainant was taken to the police station, where
he was placed in a cell with other people.
2.3
At around 8 a.m., the complainant was called in by Captain F.N. for another
interrogation session, but a vehicle belonging to the United Nations country team arrived at
that time. The representative of the country team told the Captain that she was looking for
the complainant, who had been arrested in Ngagara. The complainant confirmed that it was
indeed him, and the Captain ordered him to return to the cell. After a while, a policeman
brought a register to the cell to record his details. At the end of the interview with the Captain,
the representative of the country team visited the detainees, including the complainant. The
complainant then had the opportunity to explain everything that had happened to him.
2.4
At around 2 p.m., the complainant was transferred with other detainees to the cells of
the National Intelligence Service in the Rohero zone of Mukaza commune, Bujumbura
Mairie, and placed in a cell measuring approximately 3 by 2 metres with six other detainees.
The detention conditions were appalling, as the detainees could not receive visits, they were
permitted only two 15-minute hygiene breaks each day and the food was insufficient in
quantity and quality.
2.5
At around 4 p.m., a second beating session began, this time by officers of the National
Intelligence Service using rubber batons. The officers subjected the complainant to ethnic
slurs. After this session, which lasted around thirty minutes, the complainant was once again
questioned, by a criminal investigation officer in civilian clothes. The questions were again
on the subject of hidden weapons, of which the complainant continued to deny any
knowledge. The officer told him that if he persisted in such denials, a witness would be
brought in to accuse him. The complainant was then returned to his cell to await the witness.
2.6
The following day, 28 December 2015, the complainant was transferred to the cells
of the municipal police station in Buyenzi, Bujumbura Mairie. On 31 December 2015,
following a deterioration in his state of health due to the torture to which he had been
subjected, the complainant went to the hospital run by the non-governmental organization
Médecins sans frontières, where he received intensive care.1
2.7
On 4 January 2016, without being questioned again, the complainant was taken to the
Public Prosecutor’s Office in Bujumbura Mairie. The examining magistrate released him
without questioning. Fearing that he would be rearrested, given the prevailing security
situation, and owing to his concerns about his health due to the injection of harmful
substances to which he had been subjected, the complainant fled the country and moved to
1 The complainant does not explain how he got to the hospital while in detention. He has provided a
copy of a patient discharge form issued by Médecins sans Frontières, which states: “Admission date:
31 December 2015” and “Discharge date: 11 January 2016”.
CAT/C/82/D/957/2019
GE.25-07582
3
Rwanda. On arrival, the complainant went to hospital to continue the treatment that he had
received in Burundi.2
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
The complainant did not attempt to exhaust domestic remedies, as these proved
unavailable in view of the serious human rights violations in Burundi and various
shortcomings in the judicial system, including widespread impunity and interference by the
executive in judicial affairs. Bringing a case before the courts would constitute a great danger
for him, given the identity of the perpetrators of the acts of which he was a victim, his
particularly vulnerable situation and the general context prevailing in Burundi. His torturers
may have at their disposal a large arsenal of tactics for exerting pressure on him and numerous
contacts ready to carry out possible reprisals against either the complainant or his relatives.
The complainant refers to the Committee’s concerns about the impunity that the perpetrators
of violations appear to have enjoyed in Burundi since the political crisis began in April 2015,
which presents an additional barrier to the initiation of legal proceedings by the victims and
their families.3 In addition, the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi has stressed that people
attempting to flee from or enter Burundi have become victims of human rights violations.4
3.3
According to the complainant, the abuse to which he was subjected caused him acute
physical and psychological pain and suffering. He was severely beaten on his back and legs,
then injected with harmful substances. His suffering was prolonged by the lack of appropriate
care and the unsanitary conditions of detention, particularly the fact that he had no access to
water. The awareness of what happened to individuals suspected of being part of an armed
gang, the strong feeling of helplessness and the lack of any prospect of release, particularly
due to his lack of legal counsel, were a source of great psychological distress for the
complainant. These acts of torture, inflicted by members of the National Police and the
National Intelligence Service, were intended to intimidate, punish and pressure him into
confessing to belonging to an armed group. The complainant contends that this abuse
amounted 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
had not taken effective measures to prevent acts of torture in the territory under its
jurisdiction. Throughout his detention, the complainant did not receive appropriate care and
was unable to contact his relatives. 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,5 which constitutes a legal obstacle to the effective prevention of acts
of torture.
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. Among other things, this failure is reflected in the fact that,
throughout his detention, the complainant was not able to exercise his right to visits; he did
2 The complainant provides copies of several medical documents: a transfer and counter-referral form
issued by the university public health centre in the Southern Province of Rwanda, dated 15 January
2016; an appointment card for physiotherapy, issued by the Butare University Hospital Centre; a
prescription dated 2 February 2016, issued by the Butare University Hospital Centre; a request form
for an examination from Butare University Hospital Centre, dated 9 February 2016; and a medical
report dated 26 October 2018 issued by a specialist in internal medicine.
3 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 26.
4 A/HRC/39/63, para. 14.
5 Criminal Code, art. 148.
CAT/C/82/D/957/2019
4
GE.25-07582
not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer during his interrogation; and he did not have access
to healthcare until his health had already deteriorated.
3.6
With regard to article 14 of the Convention, the complainant considers that, by failing
to conduct a criminal investigation, the State Party has also deprived him of his right to obtain
redress and his right to fair and adequate compensation. In this regard, following the torture
to which he was subjected, he did not receive rehabilitation assistance of any kind or the
means for as full rehabilitation as possible, as provided for under article 14. 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 provisions 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
3.7
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, in this regard, that the State Party also
has an obligation, under article 16 of the Convention, to prevent public officials from
committing, instigating or tolerating such acts and to punish them if they do. In addition, the
complainant recalls the conditions of detention that he had to endure in the cells of the
National Intelligence Service. The complainant refers again to the Committee’s concluding
observations on the reports submitted by the State Party under article 19 of the Convention,
in which it 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 exposed
amount to a violation of article 16 of the Convention.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 27 January 2023 and 8 May 2024, 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 did not make any attempt to bring the matter before a
domestic judicial body. The State Party explains that it has legislation, judicial institutions
and non-judicial mechanisms for the protection of human rights in general and the guarantee
of a fair trial in particular. It points out that it was not necessary for the complainant to appear
in person in order to lodge a complaint, as his lawyer could have reported the facts to the
criminal investigation police or the public prosecutor’s office, and this report would have led
to investigations being initiated. Even supposing the complainant is already outside Burundi,
fearing for his safety, the Code of Criminal Procedure offers him the possibility of taking
legal action.
4.2
On the merits, the State Party notes that there are contradictions that lead it to doubt
the veracity of the complainant’s allegations. The complainant states that he went to the
hospital run by Médecins sans Frontières on 31 December 2015 and received intensive care
until 11 January 2016, which means that he was hospitalized for 11 days. However, the
complainant mentions in his communication that he was taken to the public prosecutor’s
office on 4 January 2016. The State Party points out that it is not possible for a person to be
in two different places at the same time.
4.3
The State Party then states that the medical documents produced by the complainant
cannot be considered credible because they contain irregularities of both form and substance.
For example, the form of the alleged medical report dated 26 October 2018 is confusing,
since, in the absence of a letterhead, it is not clear which medical institution produced it. With
regard to substantive irregularities, the State Party notes that the same report mentions the
“Centre hospitalo-universitaire de Butare”, but no such institution exists; in Butare, the
university medical institution is the “Centre hospitalier-universitaire de Butare”.
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/957/2019
GE.25-07582
5
Furthermore, the author of the said report noted a decrease in motor sensitivity in the whole
of the left arm, a finding which, according to medical science, is erroneous. Indeed, apart
from the fact that “motor sensitivity” does not exist in medical science, motor function cannot
in any case be subordinate or complementary to sensitivity.
4.4
As a result of these blatant irregularities, the State Party invites the Committee to note
that the medical papers were manufactured for the needs of the case. Worse still, the State
Party notes a kind of plagiarism in the wording of the complaint, which proves the malicious
intention to tarnish the country’s image. Having analysed in detail the complainant’s
communication and communication No. 911/2019, submitted by TRIAL International,9 the
State Party questions how different authors, acting on behalf of alleged victims in
circumstances differing in time and place, can produce the same texts.10 It follows from the
above that, contrary to what the complainant would have the Committee believe, the
plagiarized and untrue allegations made in his communication, supported by completely
fabricated evidence, had no other purpose than to tarnish the image of the State Party.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.1
On 9 February 2024 and 3 March 2025, the complainant submitted comments on the
State Party’s observations. The complainant restates 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.
Referring to various reports and decisions by international institutions,11 the complainant
concludes that, in view of the well-known failings of the Burundian justice system, it is clear
that any recourse he might undertake would be futile, thus justifying the fact that he did not
exhaust domestic remedies.
5.2
On the merits, the complainant maintains that the State Party is confusing the issue by
referring to an alleged hospitalization, which he never mentioned in his communication. He
simply stated that he was receiving intensive care, which meant that he had to visit a care
facility every day. As for the name of the medical institution mentioned in the report of
26 October 2018, the complainant explains that the State Party is playing with words simply
to maintain confusion for the sake of the case: it is very easy to check the existence of this
institution on the Internet and both words (hospitalier/hospitalo-) are equally usable. Lastly,
as regards the accusation of plagiarism, the complainant argues that these are, in both cases,
allegations of torture committed by agents of the same State on two different individuals. It
is the complainant’s view that the applicable law does not change depending on the victim.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
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.
6.2
The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it
may 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 – having fled Burundi to save his life – to return there to
9 Communication No. 911/2019 was examined by the Committee at the same session.
10 The State Party refers to the paragraphs corresponding to the claims made in the two communications.
11 Among others, A/HRC/17/50, para. 46; 2017 conference room paper of the Commission of Inquiry on
Burundi, paras. 195 and 626, available on the web page of the Commission
(https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-i-burundi/co-i-burundi); CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 11; and
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 19 v. Eritrea, communication
No. 275/03, Decision, 30 May 2007, para. 71.
CAT/C/82/D/957/2019
6
GE.25-07582
initiate domestic proceedings. The State Party responds that it was not necessary for the
complainant to appear in person in order to lodge a complaint, as his lawyer could have
reported the facts to the criminal investigation police or the public prosecutor’s office, and
this report would have led to investigations being initiated. The State Party specifies that,
even supposing the complainant is already outside Burundi, fearing for his safety, the Code
of Criminal Procedure offers him the possibility of taking legal action.
6.3
The Committee notes that the complainant did not attempt to communicate his
grievances to the competent national authorities. In this regard, it takes note of the
complainant’s allegation that, on 4 January 2016, he was taken to the public prosecutor’s
office, but the investigating magistrate released him without questioning him. The Committee
recalls that, under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it can only consider a case submitted
to it after it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The
same provision provides for two exceptions; the relevant exception in the present case is that
this will not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unlikely to bring effective
relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of the Convention.
6.4
The Committee recalls that, during its consideration of the State Party’s third periodic
report, it noted with concern that there was still no genuinely independent and confidential
mechanism specifically tasked with receiving complaints of torture or ill-treatment, and that
the existing investigative bodies lacked the necessary independence, as they reported to the
same authorities as the alleged perpetrators.12 Secondly, the Committee notes that the State
Party has presented no statistics on the number of complaints of alleged torture or
ill-treatment, the number that have led to the initiation of an impartial and thorough
investigation into the events in question, or the number that have resulted in the conviction
of the perpetrators. Lastly, the Committee notes that, while the State Party states that the
Code of Criminal Procedure provides opportunities for victims who have taken refuge abroad
to have recourse to the courts, the State Party has provided no concrete information on the
number of such complaints examined by the judicial authorities or on the effectiveness of the
procedure.
6.5
In the absence of any pertinent information from 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.13 The Committee notes the findings of the Commission of
Inquiry on Burundi concerning numerous cases of Burundian citizens who, having fled
abroad, were victims of arrest, arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment, enforced
disappearance and murder on their return to Burundi. In view of the risks to which the
complainant, his relatives or his representative could be exposed following the lodging of a
complaint on his behalf, the non-existence of a genuine independent and confidential
mechanism specifically tasked with receiving complaints of torture or ill-treatment and the
absence of detailed information from the State Party on the existence of a mechanism which
could enable victims to lodge complaints from abroad, and on the actual number of such
complaints lodged and their outcome, the Committee concludes that domestic remedies have
not proved effective in the particular circumstances of his case.
6.6
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), 11–14 and 16 of the Convention.
Consideration of the merits
7.1
The Committee has considered the 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.14
12 CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 10.
13 Nshimirimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/79/D/1039/2020), para. 6.4.
14 See, inter alia, N.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/74/D/795/2017), para. 6.1.
CAT/C/82/D/957/2019
GE.25-07582
7
7.2
The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that he was violently arrested by
the police and transferred to an unknown destination, then to the premises of the police and
the National Intelligence Service. There, he was beaten on his back and legs, had chemicals
injected into his arms causing burns and reduced strength, and was threatened with death by
the presentation of the severed head of another detainee. 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 officers and agents of the National Intelligence
Service subjected him to this treatment for eight days; and (c) that he was detained in
appalling conditions on the premises of the National Intelligence Service and was deprived
of access to medical care for five days. The Committee further notes that, during his detention
on the premises of the police and 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 any persons deprived of their liberty must be provided with prompt and independent
legal and medical assistance and must be able to contact their families, in order to prevent
torture. 15 The Committee likewise takes note of the complainant’s allegations that the
beatings and threats to which he was subjected caused him severe suffering, including
emotional and psychological suffering, and were deliberately inflicted by State officials to
extract confessions from him, to intimidate him and to punish him. It also notes that, although
the State Party has contested one of the medical documents, the other medical documents
produced by the complainant have not been contested at any time 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.16
7.3
The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claims based on article 2 (1) of the
Convention and recalls its conclusions and recommendations in respect of the reports
submitted by the State Party under article 19 of the Convention, in which it urged 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 in order to prevent its officials from making arbitrary arrests
and engaging in torture. 17 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s
allegations regarding the treatment inflicted on him by State agents during his detention on
the premises of the police and 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 took no measures to protect the complainant. Finally, the State
authorities have taken no steps to investigate the acts of torture suffered by the complainant
and impose the appropriate penalties, even if it is assumed that the transmission of the
complainant’s communication to the State Party on 25 September 2019 was the first
opportunity for the State Party to learn of the complainant’s allegations. In the light of the
foregoing, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1,
of the Convention.18
7.4
The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 of the
Convention – which requires the State Party to keep under systematic review 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 interrogations on the premises of the police and 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 challenge the acts of torture; and (e) he was detained in
appalling conditions on the premises of the National Intelligence Service. The Committee
15 See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007).
16 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.
17 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 10; and CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, paras. 8 ff. See also CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 21.
18 Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.4; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.3; Niyonzima v. Burundi,
para. 8.4; and E.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/56/D/578/2013), para. 7.5.
CAT/C/82/D/957/2019
8
GE.25-07582
recalls its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Burundi, adopted in 2014,
and on the third periodic report of Burundi, adopted in 2023, in which it expressed concern
at the excessive length of time during which people could be held in police custody, numerous
instances in which the allowable duration of police custody had been exceeded, failures to
keep registers on persons in custody or to ensure that such records were complete, failures to
comply with fundamental legal safeguards for persons deprived of their liberty, the absence
of provisions that guaranteed 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.19 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.20
7.5
With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the
complainant’s allegations that, in December 2015, he was tortured by police officers on the
premises of the police and the National Intelligence Service and continued to be subjected to
acts of torture during the eight days of his detention. Even supposing that the State Party only
became aware of these events at the time of the transmission of the complainant’s
communication on 25 September 2019, no investigation has been carried out more than ten
years after the events and more than five and a half years after the communication of the
complaint. The Committee considers that so long 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.21 The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 12 of the
Convention.
7.6
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.22 In this respect, 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 a wish to
bring criminal proceedings; 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 under this article of the Convention.23 The Committee
concludes that the facts of the case also constitute a violation of article 13 of the Convention.
7.7
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.24 In the
present case, in the absence of a prompt and impartial investigation, despite evidence that the
complainant was the victim of acts of torture, which have gone unpunished, the Committee
19 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10; and CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 24.
20 E.N. v. Burundi, para. 7.6.
21 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.
22 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.5.
23 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.
24 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.6. See also Ntikarahera v. Burundi (CAT/C/52/D/503/2012), para. 6.5.
CAT/C/82/D/957/2019
GE.25-07582
9
concludes that the State Party has also failed to fulfil its obligations under article 14 of the
Convention.25
7.8
Regarding the claim made under article 16 of the Convention, the Committee has
taken note of the complainant’s allegations about the conditions of detention in the cells of
the National Intelligence Service. In the absence of any relevant information from the State
Party in this regard, the Committee concludes that the information provided shows that those
conditions constituted inhuman and degrading treatment26 and disclose a violation by the
State Party of its obligations under article 16 of the Convention.27
8.
The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the facts
before it reveal a violation by the State Party of articles 2 (1) and 11–14, read in conjunction
with article 1, and of article 16 of the Convention.
9.
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
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) ensure that no similar violations occur in the future.
10.
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. 8.7.
26 See also CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 29.
27 Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.8; Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.8; and Ntikarahera v. Burundi,
para. 6.6.