Inadmissibility 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.25-07583 (E) 190625 200625
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 967/2019*, **
Communication submitted by:
Jean-Berchimas Nkurunziza (represented by
TRIAL International)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Burundi
Date of complaint:
29 October 2019 (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 14 November 2019 (not
issued in document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
22 April 2025
Subject matter:
Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment; lack of effective
investigation and redress
Procedural issues:
None
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
articles 1 and 16, and 16
1.1
The complainant is Jean-Berchimas Nkurunziza, a national of Burundi born in 1958.
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 14 November 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/967/2019
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
23 May 2025
English
Original: French
CAT/C/82/D/967/2019
2
GE.25-07583
1.3
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.
Facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant, an unemployed resident of the commune of Gitega, was a member
of the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie (Movement for Solidarity and
Democracy), an opposition party. At around 1 p.m. on 1 January 2016, he was arrested – in
the presence of his friends – by a group of uniformed police officers, who took him to the
headquarters of the National Intelligence Service. There, he was beaten up by two officers
and forced to lie face down on the ground while a criminal investigation officer questioned
him about his alleged role as leader of an armed opposition group operating in Mutakura. For
more than two hours, the complainant was insulted, kicked, struck with a metal bar and
whipped with electrical cables so that he would respond to the questioning. The complainant
continued to deny all the accusations, and the questioning eventually came to an end. He was
presented with a statement to sign, but was not permitted to read its content. The complainant
was held incommunicado at the premises of the National Intelligence Service for the next
two nights.
2.2
On 3 January 2016,1 the complainant was subjected to further questioning by another
criminal investigation officer, assisted by two agents of the National Intelligence Service,
again with the purpose of gathering intelligence about the structure of the aforementioned
armed group with the aim of dismantling it. On this occasion, the complainant was
blindfolded and was again forced to lie face down on the floor. With each question that was
put to him, he was again subjected to such treatment as he had endured on 1 January 2016.
During this questioning, one of the torturers struck him so hard that his right arm fractured.
The complainant continued to deny any involvement in the armed struggle being waged by
the opposition, and, after more than an hour, the questioning ended. He was again forced to
sign a statement without being allowed to read it.
2.3
From 1 to 16 January 2016, the complainant was held in solitary confinement in a
mosquito-infested cell measuring 3 by 2 metres that had no mattresses, blankets or sanitation
facilities. He had no contact with the outside world or with other persons detained by the
National Intelligence Service. He was not informed of his rights, did not benefit from legal
assistance, and his family was not informed of his deprivation of liberty. The complainant
was provided with almost no food and he received no medical attention whatsoever for the
wounds on his back, arms, ribs and legs or the painful fracture of his right arm.
2.4
On 16 January 2016, the complainant was taken to the Bujumbura public prosecutor’s
office. He was presented to the prosecutor with a fresh scar on his face, a fractured arm and
bloodstained clothes. During the hearing, he was informed that he was being prosecuted for
the offences of participation in an insurrectionary movement, illegal possession of weapons,
undermining the internal security of the State, murder and terrorism. The complainant was
still not assisted by counsel. He denied all the accusations and complained that he had been
subjected to torture by the National Intelligence Service, showing the numerous marks of
torture on his body. However, the prosecutor took no action in this regard and placed the
complainant under a committal order.
2.5
On 17 January 2016, the complainant was transferred to Gitega Prison, where he was
able to contact his relatives to inform them of his deprivation of liberty. On being registered
as a detainee, the complainant informed the prison’s social services that he had been severely
tortured during his detention at the National Intelligence Service and that he was suffering
from after-effects that needed to be treated. His right arm was finally examined and he
underwent surgery on 31 March 2016 at Gitega Regional Hospital. Between March and
October 2016, the complainant benefited from more than 30 physiotherapy and rehabilitation
sessions outside the prison;2 however, following a change in prison management, prisoners
incarcerated for political reasons were denied access to outside medical care and therefore
1 According to the State Party, this questioning took place on 2 January 2016.
2 An appointment card for these sessions is included in the case file.
CAT/C/82/D/967/2019
GE.25-07583
3
his rehabilitation was halted in October 2016. Despite a request made in August 2018 by the
prison’s doctors, 3 the prison administration refused to grant the complainant temporary
release to receive outside treatment. In the absence of medical care, the progress made in his
arm has been undone and his right wrist has gradually become paralysed.
2.6
On 24 March 2016, at a hearing before Bujumbura Tribunal de Grande Instance (court
of major jurisdiction) to review of the legality of his pretrial detention, the complainant
denounced the torture he had suffered and showed his fractured arm. He insisted that he had
previously complained about the aforementioned torture during his hearing at the public
prosecutor’s office on 16 January 2016.
2.7
On 16 December 2016, the complainant, acting through his counsel, lodged a formal
complaint with the Mukaza public prosecutor’s office4 in which he mentioned that he had
already twice reported – during his hearing at the public prosecutor’s office and before the
Bujumbura court – the abuse inflicted upon him. An investigation was opened, but despite
three meetings between his counsel and the investigating judge, no action was taken by the
Public Prosecution Service, and the complainant was not even interviewed. The investigating
judge indicated that she did not have the means to travel to Gitega Prison, over 100 kilometres
from Bujumbura, to interview the complainant. The counsel’s suggestion that the
complainant be transferred to Mpimba Prison in Bujumbura was also rejected because the
prosecutor did not have the authority to order such a transfer. The complainant’s case has
remained at a standstill since January 2017, as no investigation has been opened to establish
what really happened during his deprivation of liberty and no investigative action has been
taken.
2.8
During the proceedings, at the hearings of 4 July 2018 and 5 September 2018 before
Mukaza Tribunal de Grande Instance, in the presence of a legal representative, the
complainant again denounced the treatment inflicted upon him at the premises of the National
Intelligence Service. During the second of these hearings, the complainant furnished the court
with medical documents attesting to the paralysis of his right wrist and rolled up his shirt
sleeve so that the judges could see for themselves the still visible marks of torture. In response
to these claims, the judges asked him if he had previously lodged a complaint against his
alleged torturers. The complainant replied that he had been in contact with a lawyer who had
promised to lodge a complaint on his behalf, but he had no knowledge of the outcome of this
complaint. In addition, the complainant pointed out that his detention in Gitega Prison meant
that he was not in a position to take the steps necessary to advance his case. His counsel
reminded the judges that, even if a complaint had not been lodged, the Public Prosecution
Service was still obliged to open an investigation. In a final decision of 3 October 2019, the
Mukaza Court of Appeal sentenced the complainant, on the basis of his confessions, to
7 years’ imprisonment for participation in the insurrectionary movement.
2.9
On several occasions, the human rights organization Action by Christians for the
Abolition of Torture in Burundi (ACAT-Burundi) has denounced the torture inflicted upon
the complainant. In its reports of January and February 2018,5 the organization mentioned
the complainant’s case, noting that he had been denied access to the physiotherapy he needed
as a result of acts of torture committed during his detention at the National Intelligence
Service in January 2016.
2.10
At the time of submission of his complaint to the Committee, the complainant was
still being held in Gitega Prison. The general conditions of detention at this prison, which
houses more than 1,200 prisoners for a capacity for 400,6 are such that the complainant
receives one inadequate meal per day and has only limited access to water.
3 A copy of the request is included in the case file.
4 A copy of the complaint is included in the case file.
5 ACAT-Burundi, “Rapport sur le monitoring des violations des droits de l’homme au Burundi : La
chasse à l’homme continue”, January 2018, p. 8; and “Rapport sur le monitoring des violations des
droits de l’homme au Burundi : Référendum, source de malheurs des burundais”, February 2018,
p. 11.
6 ACAT-Burundi, “Rapport sur le monitoring des violations et atteintes aux droits de l’homme au
Burundi : Les Imbonerakure source des malheurs des Burundais”, December 2018, p. 11.
CAT/C/82/D/967/2019
4
GE.25-07583
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 first points out that, despite repeatedly denouncing the torture and
lodging a formal complaint, no action has been taken by the Public Prosecution Service,
which has not even interviewed him. Almost four years after the events and almost three
years after the complaint was lodged, the Public Prosecution Service had taken no
investigative measures, no medical expert had been called in, and no one had been questioned
about the facts. In the complainant’s view, this constitutes an unreasonable delay which
justifies the non-exhaustion of 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. The aim of these acts of torture, deliberately
inflicted by members of the National Intelligence Service, was to obtain information from
him about the structure of 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
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 at the headquarters
of the National Intelligence Service without any procedure being followed for the registration
of his detention. Throughout his detention at the National Intelligence Service, the
complainant did not receive appropriate care and was unable to contact his relatives. He was
not assisted by a lawyer during his questioning. Despite the amendment 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.
3.5
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 illustrated by the following facts: that the
complainant was not informed of his rights at the time of his arrest; that, throughout his
detention at the National Intelligence Service, he was unable to exercise his right to receive
visits; that he was not assisted by a lawyer during the two rounds of questioning; and that he
did not receive any healthcare until he was transferred to Gitega Prison.
3.6
The complainant asserts that, although the Burundian authorities were informed of the
torture to which he had been subjected, as he had reported it to the investigating judge, the
trial judges who heard his case and the Gitega Prison authorities and had lodged a formal
complaint on 16 December 2016, they did not conduct a prompt and effective investigation
into the allegations of torture, in violation of the obligations imposed on the State Party by
article 12 of the Convention. The complainant claims that the State Party did not respect his
right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, the
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 considers that, by failing
to conduct a criminal investigation, the State Party has also deprived him of his right to obtain
redress and his right to fair and adequate compensation. In this regard, following the torture
to which he was subjected, he did not receive rehabilitation assistance of any kind or the
means for as full rehabilitation as possible, as provided for by article 14. In view of the
inaction of the judicial authorities, other remedies to obtain redress, such as a civil suit for
damages, have no realistic prospect of success. In 2014, the Committee specifically expressed
its concern about the failure to apply the article of the Code of Criminal Procedure providing
for compensation for victims of torture, in violation of article 14 of the Convention.7 In 2016,
7 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 18.
CAT/C/82/D/967/2019
GE.25-07583
5
it reiterated its concerns about the need to guarantee adequate compensation in accordance
with article 14.8
3.8
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 deplorable conditions of detention to which he was subjected
in the cells of the National Intelligence Service and in Gitega Prison, where he continues to
be held, in themselves constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The complainant
refers 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.9 Finally, the complainant points out that since
October 2016 he has been denied access to medical treatment outside the prison, despite its
being necessary for the full recovery of his fractured arm, and concludes that the conditions
of detention to which he has been exposed amount to a violation of article 16 of the
Convention.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 25 January 2023 and 26 July 2024, the State Party submitted its observations. It
contends that the communication is inadmissible, without clarifying its arguments.
4.2
On the merits, the State Party rejects all the complainant’s allegations. Referring to
the statements of 1 and 2 January 2016 – and not 3 January 2016, as the complainant
maintains – it asserts that the confessions made by the complainant were full and frank. As
for the complainant’s claims that his rights were denied during the investigation by the Public
Prosecution Service, the State Party considers them to be untrue, insofar as the record drawn
up on 17 March 2016 clearly shows that the complainant was informed of his rights and,
moreover, refused to answer the questions that were put to him unless a lawyer was present.
The public prosecutor, respecting the complainant’s right to silence, closed the investigation.
4.3
The State Party refutes the complainant’s allegation that he was beaten during the two
interrogations in January 2016. It explains that the complainant had been holding two
grenades when he was apprehended and that the arresting officers had used force to subdue
him without causing damage but “unfortunately they could not avoid causing him injuries
with potentially long-lasting after-effects”. The State Party notes that its institutions
subsequently provided the complainant with medical care. It argues that investigations were
conducted and the case was shelved in June 2018 for lack of evidence of an offence, since
the injuries were caused when the complainant, who was holding grenades, was arrested and
can in no way be characterized as torture.10
4.4
The State Party provides a medical prescription dated 7 October 2016, which indicates
that, after several physiotherapy sessions, the complainant had made good progress and the
physiotherapist had required him to consult the prison doctor for reassessment. However, on
the same day, the prison management took the decision to limit temporary releases. The State
Party submits that, contrary to the argument put forward by the complainant, the care he
needed would then have been provided by the prison’s medical services. The State Party
considers that it has spared no effort to respect the complainant’s rights by providing him
with the necessary healthcare, as evidenced the by medical documents provided.
4.5
The State Party insists that the complainant’s allegation that he was beaten during
questioning on 3 January 2016 is false, as there was no questioning on that date. Furthermore,
the allegation that the complainant was tortured to the point where his right arm was broken
during questioning on 3 January 2016, while in the custody of the National Intelligence
8 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 27 (d).
9 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 17; and CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 15.
10 According to a case closure notice dated 25 June 2018, the complainant, “seeking to defend himself,
rolled on the ground and came away with a fractured right arm and injuries to his body”.
CAT/C/82/D/967/2019
6
GE.25-07583
Service, is spurious because – apart from the fact that he was not questioned on that date –
his long-lasting injuries were the result of his resisting arrest and the risk of major damage,
which obliged the police to resort to force. The State Party therefore invites the Committee
to recognize that what happened to the complainant was not deliberate, as the police had no
intent other than to overpower him.
4.6
The State Party concludes that the complainant’s false allegations have no aim but to
tarnish the country’s image, since the acts to which he was subjected are far from meeting
the definition of torture and what happened to him was not the result of any ill intentions on
the part of the police, who sought only to overpower an individual who was in flagrant
possession of a firearm. The State Party invites the Committee to recognize that the
Burundian police force showed great professionalism, considering that in many countries –
even the most developed ones – persons brandishing firearms in such situations are shot dead
on the spot.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.1
On 9 March 2023 and 3 October 2024, the complainant submitted comments on the
State Party’s observations. He notes that the State Party does not put forward any grounds of
inadmissibility, nor does it contest the arguments made by the complainant in his initial
complaint.
5.2
On the merits, the complainant observes that his complaint of serious physical abuse
by the Burundian police force is clearly set forth in the investigation record of 17 March
2016, in which he states that police officers had beaten him and broken his arm and asks that
they be prosecuted. The complainant questions the veracity of the statement of 1 January
2016, recalling that, at the end of the questioning and after he had been tortured, officers of
the National Intelligence Service presented him with a statement that he was forced to sign
without being allowed to read its content. The same observation applies to the statement of
2 January 2016.
5.3
The complainant points out that the question of potential criminal liability has no
bearing on the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. By contrast, the complainant’s
repeated allegation that the so-called confessions had been obtained by the police through
torture was an additional element that should have prompted the opening of a thorough and
effective investigation and should have been the basis for declaring this evidence null and
void in accordance with article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially in a case
where the only evidence of guilt, as confirmed by the Mukaza Court of Appeal, was the
confessions obtained during questioning.
5.4
The complainant contests the State Party’s version of events. He takes note of the fact
that the Mukaza Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 3 October 2019, overturned his
conviction for illegal possession of weapons on the grounds that the Public Prosecution
Service had failed to take into account the memorandum of seizure of 1 January 2016 when
bringing the charges. The complainant also notes that the State Party does not contest his
arguments demonstrating the violation of articles 2 (1), 11–14 and 16 of the Convention.
5.5
The complainant asserts that it was only on reading the State Party’s observations that
he learned that the investigation opened by the public prosecutor’s office into his allegations
of torture had been shelved in June 2018. He expresses surprise that he has never been
informed of the steps taken in the framework of this investigation, or of its closure. Moreover,
despite his requests and his diligence, he was never interviewed as part of the investigation,
and the case closure notice sheds no light on the investigative measures that were taken by
the Public Prosecution Service. Under these circumstances, he considers that the Burundian
authorities have failed in their obligation to conduct a prompt, impartial and effective
investigation into his allegations of torture.
5.6
Finally, the complainant states that he completed his prison sentence on 1 January
2023. However, despite requests for his release11 and numerous reminders on this subject
sent by his lawyer, the complainant remains in detention in Gitega Prison without any legal
11 Copies of these requests are included in the case file.
CAT/C/82/D/967/2019
GE.25-07583
7
justification whatsoever for the detention, which corroborates the view that the authorities
are persecuting him on political grounds.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must
decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has
ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same
matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
6.2
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. The Committee notes that, in the present case,
the State Party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic
remedies.
6.3
The Committee notes that, although the State Party has contested the admissibility of
the complaint, it has not provided any specific arguments to that effect. Consequently, the
Committee considers that the State Party’s challenge to admissibility is unsubstantiated.
6.4
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), 11–14 and 16 of the Convention.
Consideration of the merits
7.1
The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the
information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the
Convention. As the State Party has not provided any detailed information on the merits, due
weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations, which have been properly
substantiated.12
7.2
The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that, after his arrest and transfer to
the premises of the National Intelligence Service, he was twice subjected to questioning
during which he was beaten, kicked, struck with a metal bar, whipped with electrical cables
and insulted. It also notes: (a) that the complainant’s suffering was prolonged by the lack of
appropriate care and the unsanitary conditions of detention at the premises of the National
Intelligence Service; (b) that the officers of the National Intelligence Service struck him so
hard that his right arm was fractured; and (c) that he was detained in deplorable conditions at
the premises of the National Intelligence Service and, in particular, was denied access to
medical care for more than two weeks before being transferred to Gitega Prison. The
Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which, in order to prevent torture, all
persons deprived of their liberty have the right to be provided promptly with independent
legal assistance and medical assistance and must be able to contact their relatives.13 The
Committee likewise takes note of the complainant’s allegations that the beating to which he
was subjected caused him severe suffering, including emotional and psychological suffering,
and was deliberately inflicted by State officials to punish and intimidate him.
7.3
The Committee notes that this version of events has been contested by the State Party,
which maintains that the complainant was holding two grenades when he was apprehended
and that the police therefore used force to subdue him, causing injuries with lasting after-
effects. The Committee also notes that, according to the notice of 25 June 2018 whereby the
complaint of torture was dismissed, the complainant “rolled on the ground and came away
with a fractured right arm and injuries to his body”.
7.4
The Committee recalls that, in its general comment No. 4 (2017), it clarified that when
complainants are in a situation where they have no possibility of obtaining documentation
12 See, inter alia, N.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/74/D/795/2017), para. 6.1.
13 See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007).
CAT/C/82/D/967/2019
8
GE.25-07583
relating to their allegation of torture or have been deprived of liberty, the burden of proof is
reversed and it falls to the State concerned to investigate the allegations.14 In the present case,
despite numerous allegations of torture made by the complainant to the Burundian
authorities, the State Party merely asserts that the complainant’s long-lasting injuries – whose
existence is not disputed – were sustained at the time of his arrest because he had been holding
two grenades.
7.5
The Committee observes that, whereas the State Party claims – without producing any
evidence – that the police used force to arrest the complainant because he was armed with
two grenades, the Mukaza Court of Appeal clearly states in its final decision of 3 October
2019 that the Public Prosecution Service did not prosecute the complainant for the illegal
possession of weapons. The Committee notes that no medical report attesting to the origin of
the complainant’s injuries was drawn up at the time of his detention. The State Party refers
to the two statements of January 2016, signed by the complainant, in support of its claim that
his questioning took place without incident, whereas the complainant argues that he was
forced to sign them. In this respect, the Committee notes the lack of an investigation to clarify
whether the complainant was forced to sign his statements. Moreover, the State Party does
not dispute the fact that the complainant did not have the benefit of counsel during the two
rounds of questioning. Under these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the State
Party has failed to discharge the burden of proof and that the facts as presented by the
complainant constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.15
7.6
The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claims based on article 2 (1) of the
Convention and recalls its conclusions and recommendations in respect of the reports
submitted by the State Party under article 19 of the Convention, in which it urged the State
Party to take effective legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent all acts of
torture and all ill-treatment and to take steps, as a matter of urgency, to bring all places of
detention under judicial control to prevent its officials from making arbitrary arrests and
engaging in torture.16 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations
regarding the treatment inflicted upon him by State agents during his detention at the National
Intelligence Service, throughout which time he was unable to contact his family or have
access to legal counsel or a doctor. The Committee also notes that the State Party has not
taken any measures to protect the complainant. Lastly, the State authorities have taken no
steps to investigate the acts of torture to which the complainant was subjected or to apply the
necessary penalties, despite the allegations he made in this regard before the investigating
judge, in a formal complaint and subsequently before the courts. The Committee notes that
the formal complaint was dismissed almost two years later without the complainant’s even
being interviewed or informed so as to have the opportunity to contest the decision. In the
light of the foregoing, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction
with article 1, of the Convention.17
7.7
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 alleges, in particular, that: (a) despite the
severity of his condition after the two interviews of January 2016, he did not receive
appropriate medical care; (b) that he did not have access to a lawyer during his questioning
at the premises of the National Intelligence Service or during his initial questioning before
the public prosecutor; (c) that he was arrested without being informed of the charges against
him; (d) that he did not have effective remedies for reporting acts of torture; and (e) that he
has been detained in deplorable conditions at the premises of the National Intelligence
14 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 38.
15 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.
16 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 10; and CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 8 ff. See also CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 21.
17 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/967/2019
GE.25-07583
9
Service and subsequently at Gitega Prison. The Committee recalls its concluding
observations on the second and the third periodic reports of Burundi, adopted in 2014 and
2023 respectively, in which it expressed concern at the excessive length of time during which
people can be held in police custody, numerous instances in which the allowable duration of
police custody has been exceeded, failures to keep registers on persons in custody or to ensure
that such records are complete, failures to comply with fundamental legal safeguards for
persons deprived of their liberty, the absence of provisions that guarantee access to a doctor
and access to legal assistance for persons of limited means, and the excessive use of pretrial
detention in the absence of regular reviews of its legality and of any limit on its total
duration.18 In the present case, the complainant appears to have been deprived of any form of
judicial oversight. In the absence of any relevant information to the contrary from the State
Party, the existence of such deplorable conditions and treatment is sufficient to establish that
the State Party has 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 failure resulted in harm to the complainant. The Committee therefore
finds a violation of article 11 of the Convention.19
7.8
With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the
complainant’s allegations that, on 1 January 2016, he was arrested by a group of uniformed
police officers, tortured during two rounds of questioning at the premises of the National
Intelligence Service and has continued to be subjected to ill-treatment during his detention.
Although he denounced the torture before the investigating judge and 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 the criminal complaint and was closed almost two years later
without any investigative action having been taken. 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.20 Accordingly, the Committee
finds a violation of article 12 of the Convention.
7.9
In view of the preceding findings, the State Party has also failed in its responsibility
under article 13 of the Convention to ensure the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint,
which presupposes that the authorities will provide a satisfactory response to such a
complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation.21 The Committee notes that
article 13 does not require the formal lodging of a complaint of torture under the procedure
laid down in national law, nor does it require an express statement of desire that criminal
proceedings be instituted; it is enough for the victim simply to come forward and bring the
facts to the attention of an authority of the State for the latter to be obliged to consider this a
tacit but unequivocal expression of the victim’s wish to have an immediate and impartial
investigation initiated, as prescribed by this article of the Convention.22 The Committee also
notes that the investigation that was opened following the formal complaint was closed after
almost two years without any investigative action. The Committee concludes that the facts
of the case also constitute a violation of article 13 of the Convention.
7.10
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.23 In the
18 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10; and CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 24.
19 Nshimirimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/79/D/1039/2020), para. 8.4.
20 Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.5; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.5; Kabura v. Burundi,
para. 7.4; and Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.4.
21 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.5.
22 Parot v. Spain (CAT/C/14/D/6/1990), para. 10.4; Blanco Abad v. Spain (CAT/C/20/D/59/1996),
para. 8.6; and Ltaief v. Tunisia (CAT/C/31/D/189/2001), para. 10.6.
23 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.6; and Ntikarahera v. Burundi (CAT/C/52/D/503/2012), para. 6.5. See
also CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, paras. 35 and 36.
CAT/C/82/D/967/2019
10
GE.25-07583
present case, in the absence of a prompt and impartial investigation, despite clear material
evidence that the complainant was the victim of acts of torture, which have gone unpunished,
the Committee concludes that the State Party has also failed to fulfil its obligations under
article 14 of the Convention.24
7.11
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 and in Gitega Prison. In the absence of any relevant
information from the State Party in this regard, the Committee concludes that the information
provided shows that these conditions constitute inhuman and degrading treatment 25 and
discloses a violation by the State Party of its obligations under article 16 of the Convention.26
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, 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) prosecute and punish those responsible for the treatment to which the complainant was
subjected; (c) provide the complainant with appropriate redress, including compensation for
material and non-material damage, 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.
24 Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.7.
25 See also CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, paras. 29, 33 and 34.
26 Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.8; Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.8; and Ntikarahera v. Burundi,
para. 6.6.