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.25-20659 (E) 230126 260126
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1026/2020*, **
Communication submitted by:
Tharcisse Nikobambereye (represented by
counsel, TRIAL International)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Burundi
Date of complaint:
25 August 2020 (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 25 September 2020 (not
issued in document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
14 November 2025
Subject matter:
Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment; lack of effective
investigation and reparation
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
Articles of the Convention:
2 (1) and 11, read in conjunction with articles 1
and 16, and 16
1.1
The complainant is Tharcisse Nikobambereye, a national of Burundi born in 1966. He
claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (1) and 11 of the
Convention, read in conjunction with article 1 or, in the alternative, with article 16, and under
article 16 of the Convention, read alone. The State Party has made the declaration pursuant
to article 22 (1), effective from 10 June 2003. The complainant is represented by counsel.
1.2
On 25 September 2020, 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-third session (10–28 November 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/83/D/1026/2020
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
20 January 2026
English
Original: French
CAT/C/83/D/1026/2020
2
GE.25-20659
1.3
On 16 November 2021, the complainant’s counsel informed the Committee of the
complainant’s death 1 and his family’s wish to continue with the consideration of the
communication.
Facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant was a member of the Parti pour le redressement national (Party for
National Recovery), an opposition party founded by his cousin. In 2010, the complainant
became the party’s provincial representative in Muyinga Province and was considered the
most influential opposition figure there. He faced pressure and discrimination because of his
political opposition. In 2011, he was dismissed from his job as an accountant for the
municipal authority on the ground that he was not a member of the ruling party.2 Later, when
he became the managing director of a currency exchange bureau, Imbonerakure3 would often
stand outside the premises and prevent customers from entering.
2.2
In September 2015, a few months after the beginning of the 2015 crisis, a neighbour
who was a highly influential member of the ruling party advised the complainant to leave the
country because the party planned to assassinate him. The complainant ignored this threat.
2.3
On 4 November 2015, while traveling by bus, the complainant was arrested by two
armed police officials and an Imbonerakure and forcibly brought to a bar known as “Iwabo
W’abantu”, which has been described by the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi as a place
of torture. He was accused of involvement in the armed struggle led by the opposition and
was subjected to numerous acts of torture while being interrogated. Blindfolded and forced
to lie on the floor, the complainant was brutally beaten with various objects that he was able
to identify by their material and hardness, namely, an iron rod, a truncheon and a club. He
was also repeatedly struck with a rock on the knees and ankles and forced to kneel on beer
bottle caps and pieces of glass from broken bottles. The complainant was also subjected to
genital violence: his torturers repeatedly kicked him in the crotch, yanked his penis as if to
tear it off and pierced him with long needles. He was also insulted with ethnic slurs on
account of his being Tutsi.
2.4
After more than an hour of interrogation, the complainant was injected in the head
with an unknown substance and fainted. When he woke up, he found himself in a cell, where
he remained captive in inhuman conditions for almost a week. The cell he shared, sometimes
with three people, sometimes with two, measured about three by four metres; the floor was
smeared with blood and there were no sanitary facilities, electricity, mattresses or blankets.
The complainant was given food only once a day, at irregular times, in portions that were
both insufficient and of poor quality, and was given very little water. He received no medical
attention for his wounds and swelling, was never informed of his rights and was denied legal
assistance. His family was not informed of his deprivation of liberty.
2.5
Between 8 and 10 November 2015, the complainant was interrogated again, on a daily
basis. At least twice a day, he was taken out of his cell for violent interrogations, during
which he was again beaten. The torturers used the same instruments as in the first
interrogation (an iron rod, a truncheon and a club) and repeated the same questions, asking
when and how the rebels would attack the country. The complainant was not blindfolded
during these interrogations, which allowed him to see that his torturers all wore police
uniforms.
2.6
On 11 November 2015, the complainant escaped the place of torture by promising to
pay an Imbonerakure assigned to execute him a ransom of 5 million Burundi francs, as
requested by the latter. He escaped in a van, concealed under plastic sheeting so as to appear
1 No information regarding the date and circumstances of the complainant’s death was provided.
2 The complainant sued for unfair dismissal and won the case.
3 Members of the youth movement affiliated with the Conseil national pour la défense de la
démocratie-Forces pour la défense de la démocratie (National Council for the Defence of Democracy-
Forces for the Defence of Democracy).
CAT/C/83/D/1026/2020
GE.25-20659
3
like a corpse. He remained captive for a further 19 days and was transferred from one house
to another so as not to be discovered,4 until 29 November 2015, when the ransom was paid
by the complainant’s wife, who had been contacted.
2.7
The complainant immediately fled to Uganda, where he was finally able to receive
medical treatment. A report from Mulago Hospital dated 31 December 2015 noted multiple
cranial and scalp injuries and a post-traumatic brain mass.5 A specialist doctor at the hospital
recommended specific treatment abroad for the complainant’s head condition, but owing to
a lack of funds for the treatment, the complainant continued to suffer severe headaches that
sometimes caused him to lose consciousness. He often took sedatives.
2.8
The complainant chose not to report the incident because he wanted people to believe
he was dead. At the time of the submission of the communication, the complainant was still
living in Uganda in a highly dangerous situation, forced to move house regularly to avoid
being followed by nationals of Burundi residing in Uganda who knew him, were aware of
what had happened to him6 and continued to seek his death.7
Complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (1)
and 11 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 submits that given the danger in which he would place himself and
his family in attempting any action before the domestic courts, the prevailing situation of
serious human rights violations in Burundi and the objective ineffectiveness of domestic
remedies there, such remedies must be considered unavailable. Given that the perpetrators
are officials of the National Police, it would be particularly dangerous for the complainant to
pursue any action seeking to establish the responsibility of State agents, who enjoy total
impunity. 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 bringing of legal actions by victims
and their families.8 Even after the establishment of a legal and institutional framework to
ensure the safety of victims and witnesses in 2016, the ongoing violations and climate of
impunity in Burundi9 make it clear to the complainant that the adoption of this new legal
framework has had no tangible impact on the situation of victims and their protection. Lastly,
the failure of the judicial system and the persistent climate of abuse and impunity10 mean that
any remedy the complainant might have sought would have been futile.
3.3
According to the complainant, the mistreatment inflicted on him caused him severe
suffering, which had a lingering impact on his physical and mental health. The goal of the
police officers who violently beat him was to inflict such suffering on him. In addition, he
was denied access to medical treatment. These acts of torture, intentionally inflicted by
officials of the National Police, were aimed at obtaining information from him about the
organization of a rebellion and at punishing him for belonging to the Tutsi ethnic group and
the opposition. The complainant therefore argues that this abuse constituted torture within
the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.
4 According to the complainant, this Imbonerakure collaborated with four other people to facilitate his
escape: a commissioned police officer, a non-commissioned police officer (brigadier) and two police
constables who then held him until his release.
5 A copy is attached to the case file.
6 The complainant states that the Imbonerakure who helped him was sent on a mission to Uganda and
was working as an office assistant at the Embassy of Burundi. This Imbonerakure complained to other
Burundi nationals in Uganda about the severe punishment he had suffered at the hands of his bosses
when they learned that the complainant had not been executed. He claimed to have been deprived of
some of the benefits he had previously enjoyed (no further details are provided).
7 A report of the Kampala police dated 5 January 2016 is on file, according to which an investigation
has been opened into the complainant’s allegations of threats and intimidation by third parties.
8 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 26. See also A/HRC/39/CRP.1, para. 569.
9 A/HRC/36/54 and A/HRC/36/54/Corr.1, para. 13.
10 A/HRC/39/CRP.1, para. 576.
CAT/C/83/D/1026/2020
4
GE.25-20659
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 arbitrary arrest, the complainant was detained at the “Iwabo
W’abantu” bar, used by the authorities of Burundi as an unofficial place of detention, without
any form of registration. Moreover, during his detention, the complainant was not informed
of his rights, was denied any form of legal assistance or medical care and was prevented from
contacting his family.
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 is evident from the fact that the complainant was not
informed of his rights at the time of his arrest and the fact that, throughout his detention in
an unofficial place of detention, he was unable to exercise his right to receive visits, was not
assisted by a lawyer during interrogation and did not receive any medical treatment.
3.6
The complainant reiterates that the violent acts inflicted on him constitute torture, in
accordance with the definition set out in article 1 of the Convention. Should the Committee
not agree to qualify it as such, 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, he recalls the conditions of
detention imposed on him in the unofficial place of detention known as “Iwabo W’abantu”,
where he was held for over six days in deplorable conditions, which per se constitutes 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 noted that conditions of detention in Burundi amount to inhuman and
degrading treatment. 11 Lastly, the complainant reiterates that he received no medical
treatment while in detention despite his critical condition and concludes that the conditions
of detention he experienced constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention.
3.7
In his conclusions, the complainant requests that the Committee call upon the State
Party to conduct a prompt, thorough and effective investigation into the torture inflicted on
him, pursuant to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, and to provide him with reparation,
pursuant to article 14.
State Party’s observations on the merits
4.1
On 8 May 2024, the State Party submitted its observations on the merits. While
acknowledging that the place commonly known as “Iwabo W’abantu” is well known to users
of national road No. 1 leading north, the State Party asserts that it has no knowledge of any
alleged place of detention in the vicinity of the “Iwabo W’abantu” bar, which the complainant
has not reported to the competent State authorities for investigation. The State Party affirms
that there is no police station in the place described by the complainant. For the State Party,
if the complainant was indeed detained as he claims, it must have been a case of kidnapping
by individuals posing as police officials. Accordingly, the State Party’s responsibility for the
events alleged by the complainant has not been established.12
4.2
With regard to the complainant’s allegations under article 2 (1) of the Convention, the
State Party emphasizes that it has spared no effort in ratifying various international human
rights instruments, including the Convention against Torture, and that the rights enshrined in
those instruments form an integral part of its constitutional framework under article 19 of the
Constitution. It claims that it has legislation that provides sound guarantees of the legal
security of its subjects of law in respect of human rights violations. An entire chapter of Act
11 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 17, and CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 15.
12 The State Party cites the case of G.R.B. v. Sweden (CAT/C/20/D/83/1997) to support its argument that
the Committee has held there is no violation of the Convention where the State is not involved in the
alleged torture or ill-treatment.
CAT/C/83/D/1026/2020
GE.25-20659
5
No. 1/27 of 29 December 2017 amending the Criminal Code of Burundi relates to the
punishment of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (arts. 206–211). The
State Party has judicial institutions and non-judicial mechanisms for the protection of human
rights in general and the prevention of torture in particular. It has established a public body
to monitor investigations into human rights violations and to protect and promote those rights,
namely, the National Independent Human Rights Commission, which has been accredited
with A status by the United Nations Human Rights Council.
4.3
With regard to article 11 of the Convention, the State Party reiterates that the
complainant was clearly the victim of a kidnapping, which was never reported and therefore
could not be investigated. It recalls that it has legislation implementing article 11 of the
Convention, including the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the
organization of police custody and pretrial detention.
4.4
The State Party contends that the complainant’s allegations under article 16 of the
Convention are merely a patchwork of newspaper articles and statements that do not reflect
the events he claims to have experienced. Moreover, the State Party bears no responsibility
for what might have happened to the complainant, especially as he acknowledges that he was
able to communicate with his wife but never attempted to bring his situation to the attention
of the national authorities. In this regard, the State Party refers to the Committee’s
jurisprudence, according to which it is enough for the victim simply to bring the facts to the
attention of an authority of the State for the latter to be obliged to consider it as a tacit but
unequivocal expression of the victim’s wish that the facts should be promptly and impartially
investigated.13 The State Party notes that the alleged facts were never brought to the attention
of the authorities and that the complainant thereby deliberately deprived them of the
opportunity to pursue, with all available means, the kidnappers who were disturbing the lives
of peaceful citizens, including the complainant himself.
4.5
The State Party argues that, according to article 1 of the Convention, the purpose of
torture is to obtain information or a confession, whereas the acts the complainant alleges were
inflicted on him ultimately served only the purpose of obtaining a ransom, which he claims
to have paid to the kidnappers in exchange for his release. In addition, the State Party argues
that kidnappings to extort ransoms by swindlers posing as State agents that occurred during
the 2015 crisis have consistently been publicly denounced by the State, as evidenced by a
press briefing held on 17 August 2016 by the minister responsible for human rights at the
time.14
4.6
The State Party concludes that the facts alleged by the complainant cannot, under any
circumstances, constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention,
given that the alleged perpetrators were kidnappers. The sole purpose of the acts allegedly
endured by the complainant, which he seeks to attribute to the State Party, was to extort a
ransom.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.1
On 23 January 2025, the complainant submitted his comments on the State Party’s
observations. He points out that the State Party’s professed ignorance of the detention cell
located next to the “Iwabo W’abantu” bar is contradicted by a whole body of public reports
and information that the State Party cannot reasonably ignore concerning the bar, which
belonged to the late General Adolphe Nshimirimana, former General Administrator of the
National Intelligence Service. He recalls that in its concluding observations on the special
report of Burundi, the Committee expressed concern about acts of torture and ill-treatment
alleged to have taken place in unofficial places of detention, including the cell referred to as
“Iwabo W’abuntu”.15 Furthermore, the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi has described this
13 Blanco Abad v. Spain (CAT/C/20/D/59/1996), para. 8.6.
14 IWACU, “Des escrocs se font passer pour des agents du SNR pour rançonner des gens”, 19 August
2016, available at https://www.iwacu-burundi.org/des-escrocs-se-font-passer-pour-des-agents-du-snr-
pour-ranconner-des-gens/.
15 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 12. See also International Federation for Human Rights Leagues and
Ligue burundaise des droits de l’homme (ITEKA), Repression and genocidal dynamics in Burundi,
15 November 2016, pp. 81 and 82.
CAT/C/83/D/1026/2020
6
GE.25-20659
establishment as an unofficial place of detention used by the authorities of Burundi as a place
of torture. The International Criminal Court, too, identified the “Iwabo W’abantu” bar as an
unofficial place of detention where acts of torture and ill-treatment against detainees have
allegedly been committed.16 For the complainant, the State Party’s claim that it is unfamiliar
with this place is therefore impossible to accept.
5.2
The complainant also observes that while the State Party maintains that he never
reported the alleged facts, it has nonetheless been aware of his allegations since at least
August 2020, the date of their submission to the Committee. Nevertheless, no investigation
has been undertaken to elucidate the facts surrounding the violations, despite the extensive
details provided in the complainant’s account, including the identities of certain perpetrators.
5.3
Lastly, the complainant notes that the State Party merely outlines its legislative
framework, without demonstrating that the measures in place are effective in meeting its
obligations under articles 2 (1) and 11 of the Convention.
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. In the present case, it notes the State Party’s
argument, albeit not formulated in connection with the admissibility of the communication,
that the complainant did not bring the alleged facts to the attention of its authorities. The
Committee notes the complainant’s explanation that domestic remedies must be considered
unavailable given the identities of the alleged perpetrators, the risks to him and his relatives
in seeking recourse before domestic courts, the prevailing situation of serious human rights
violations in Burundi and the objective ineffectiveness of available remedies.
6.3
The Committee recalls that article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention provides for two
exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies; the relevant exception in the present case
is that this shall 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. In this
regard, the Committee recalls that, during its consideration of the State Party’s third periodic
report in 2023, it noted with concern that there was still no specific, independent and
confidential mechanism for reporting complaints of torture or ill-treatment and that existing
investigation bodies lacked the necessary independence, as they belonged to the same
structure that employed the persons accused.17 The Committee notes with concern that while
it has observed “many consistent, ongoing allegations” of torture and ill-treatment, 18
according to statistics provided by the State Party in another case considered by the
Committee, only one judgment was issued in 2020, one in 2021, none in 2022 and two in
2023.19 Moreover, in its previous decisions concerning individual communications against
the State Party, the Committee has highlighted major shortcomings in the procedure for
providing complainants with effective remedies.20
16 International Criminal Court, No. ICC-01/17-X, 25 October 2017, para. 125.
17 CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 10.
18 Ibid.
19 E.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/82/D/1105/2021), para. 7.2, and footnote 14.
20 For example, Nshimirimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/79/D/1039/2020), paras. 6.3 and 6.4, Ndarisigaranye
v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/493/2012/Corr.1), para. 6.3, C.N. v. Burundi
(CAT/C/60/D/579/2013), para. 6.3, Kabura v. Burundi (CAT/C/59/D/549/2013), para. 6.2, E.N. v.
Burundi (CAT/C/56/D/578/2013), para. 6.2, Ntahiraja v. Burundi (CAT/C/55/D/575/2013), para. 6.3,
and Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 7.2.
CAT/C/83/D/1026/2020
GE.25-20659
7
6.4
Given the limited information provided by the State Party in this regard, the
Committee considers that the State Party has not refuted the complainant’s allegation that
existing remedies for reporting acts of torture were not, in practice, made available to him to
enable him to assert his rights under the Convention.21 The Committee notes the findings of
the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi concerning numerous citizens of Burundi who, upon
returning to the country after having fled abroad, were arrested and subjected to arbitrary
detention, acts of torture and ill-treatment and enforced disappearance or assassinated.22 It
takes note of the risks to which the complainant, his relatives or his legal counsel might have
been exposed by lodging a complaint on his behalf, of the lack of a specific and truly
independent and confidential mechanism for reporting complaints of torture or ill-treatment
and of the absence of a mechanism allowing victims to lodge complaints from abroad. In the
particular circumstances of the present case, given the limited information provided by the
State Party and the specific situation in which the complainant found himself, the Committee
concludes that domestic remedies have been proven to be ineffective in his case.23
6.5
The Committee notes that although in his conclusions the complainant requested that
the Committee call upon the State Party to investigate the alleged facts pursuant to articles
12 and 13 of the Convention and to provide him with reparation pursuant to article 14, he did
not allege any violations of articles 12, 13 or 14. Consequently, the Committee considers that
it is not required to rule on an alleged violation of articles 12, 13 or 14 of the Convention.
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 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.24
7.2
The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that following his arrest and
transfer to an unofficial place of detention, he was subjected to repeated interrogations during
which he was violently beaten, kicked all over his body, hit with various instruments and
insulted in order to elicit responses. It also notes that: (a) the complainant’s suffering was
prolonged by the lack of appropriate care and the unsanitary conditions of detention in the
cell referred to as “Iwabo W’abantu”; (b) the police subjected him to this treatment for four
days; and (c) he was detained in appalling conditions in this unofficial place of detention and
was deprived of access to medical care for a week. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence
according to which any person deprived of his or her liberty must be provided with prompt
and independent legal and medical assistance and must be able to contact his or her family,
in order to prevent torture.25 The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s allegations
that the beatings to which he was subjected caused him severe suffering, including emotional
and psychological pain, and were deliberately inflicted by State officials with the aim of
extracting confessions from him and intimidating and punishing him.
7.3
The Committee notes that this version of the events has been contested by the State
Party. According to the State Party, the complainant was the victim of a kidnapping, not of
acts committed by officials of the National Police. 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 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.26 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State Party
21 Nshimirimana v. Burundi, para. 6.4.
22 A/HRC/48/68, paras. 40 et seq.
23 E.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/82/D/1105/2021), para. 8.5, Hatungimana v. Burundi
(CAT/C/82/D/1100/2021), para. 7.5, and Nkunzimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/82/D/957/2019), para. 6.5.
24 See, inter alia, N.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/74/D/795/2017), para. 6.1.
25 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007), para. 13.
26 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 38.
CAT/C/83/D/1026/2020
8
GE.25-20659
merely asserts that it did not know that the “Iwabo W’abantu” bar was used as an unofficial
place of detention, despite numerous official reports in this regard, including by the
Committee itself, the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi and the International Criminal
Court. It also notes that the State Party has not contested the medical report produced by the
complainant, which refers to multiple cranial and scalp injuries and a post-traumatic brain
mass. 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.27
7.4
The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claims based on article 2 (1) of the
Convention and recalls its conclusions and recommendations in respect of the reports
submitted by the State Party under article 19 of the Convention, in which it urged the State
Party to take effective legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent all acts of
torture and all ill-treatment and to take steps, as a matter of urgency, to bring all places of
detention under judicial control to prevent its officials from making arbitrary arrests and
engaging in torture.28 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations
regarding the treatment inflicted on him by State agents during his detention at the unofficial
place of detention known as “Iwabo W’abantu”, 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 failed to take any measures to protect the complainant. Moreover, the State
authorities made no effort to investigate the acts of torture inflicted on the complainant or to
impose appropriate sanctions, even assuming that the communication transmitted to the State
Party on 25 September 2020 was its first opportunity to learn of the complainant’s
allegations.29 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1),
read in conjunction with article 1, of the Convention.30
7.5
The Committee further notes the complainant’s allegation that article 11 of the
Convention – which calls on States Parties 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 their jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of
torture – was violated. The complainant alleges, in particular, that: (a) despite his critical
condition, he did not receive appropriate medical treatment; (b) he did not have access to
legal counsel during his interrogations in the unofficial place of detention referred to as
“Iwabo W’abantu”; (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 in this unofficial place of detention. The Committee
recalls its concluding observations regarding the second periodic report of Burundi, adopted
in 2014, and those regarding the third periodic report of Burundi, adopted in 2023, in which
it expressed concern at the excessive length of time during which people may be held in
police custody, the numerous instances in which the permissible duration of police custody
had 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.31 In the present case, the complainant appears to have been deprived of any form of
judicial oversight. In the absence of any relevant evidence 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
27 Nkurunziza v. Burundi (CAT/C/82/D/967/2019), paras. 7.4 and 7.5.
28 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.
29 Nkunzimana v. Burundi, para. 7.3, and E.N. v. Burundi, para. 9.4.
30 Ndagijimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/496/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/496/2012/Corr.1), para. 8.4,
Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.3, Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.3, and E.N. v. Burundi
(CAT/C/56/D/578/2013), para. 7.5.
31 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10.
CAT/C/83/D/1026/2020
GE.25-20659
9
imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction with a view to preventing torture and that
this violation resulted in harm to the complainant. The Committee therefore finds a violation
of article 11 of the Convention.32
7.6
Regarding the claim made under article 16 of the Convention, the Committee takes
note of the complainant’s allegations about the conditions of detention in the unofficial place
of detention referred to as “Iwabo W’abantu”. In the absence of any relevant information
from the State Party, which has merely stated that it had no knowledge of this unofficial place
of detention despite numerous reports in this regard by international bodies, the Committee
concludes that the information provided shows that these conditions constitute inhuman and
degrading treatment and disclose a violation by the State Party of its obligations under article
16 of the Convention.33
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, read in conjunction with
article 1, and of article 16 of the Convention.
9.
The Committee urges the State Party: (a) to provide the complainant’s next of kin with
appropriate reparation, including compensation for material and non-material damages,
restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition; and (b) to ensure that
no similar violations occur in the future.
10.
In accordance with rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee requests the
State Party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmission of this decision, of the
steps it has taken in response to the above findings.
32 Nshimirimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/79/D/1039/2020), para. 8.4.
33 Ibid., para. 8.8, Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.8, and Ntikarahera v. Burundi, para. 6.6.