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.25-20656 (E) 190126 190126
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1140/2022*, **
Communication submitted by:
Donatien Ndabigeze (represented by counsel,
World Organisation against Torture)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Burundi
Date of complaint:
12 October 2021 (initial submission)
Document references:
Decision taken pursuant to rule 115 of the
Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to
the State Party on 18 July 2022 (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 redress
Procedural issue:
State Party’s failure to cooperate
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 12–14, read in conjunction with
articles 1 and 16, and 16
1.
The complainant is Donatien Ndabigeze, a national of Burundi born in 1974. He
claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (1) and 12–14 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 has made the declaration pursuant
to article 22 (1) of the Convention, effective from 10 June 2003. The complainant is
represented by counsel.
* 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/1140/2022
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
13 January 2026
English
Original: French
CAT/C/83/D/1140/2022
2
GE.25-20656
Facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant was an officer of the National Police,1 on secondment to the National
Intelligence Service.2 Following the assassination in March 2016 of Lieutenant Colonel
Darius Ikurakure, who had been close to the regime in power, the complainant began to
receive serious threats from soldiers who had been guarding Mr. Ikurakure and who claimed,
according to testimonies, that the complainant had been involved in the assassination. The
complainant reported these threats to his superiors, but to no avail. On 10 April 2016, he was
ordered to leave a bar by soldiers who had been guarding Mr. Ikurakure. They told him they
had the right to kill whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted. These threats were reported
to the heads of the National Intelligence Service but nothing was done to protect the
complainant.
2.2
On 24 April 2016, at around 7.30 p.m., the complainant’s family were attacked in their
home by a team of five soldiers in service uniforms who had guarded Mr. Ikurakure. They
were armed with two light machine guns, three Kalashnikov rifles and grenades. Several
other soldiers remained outside to deter anyone else from intervening. At the time of the
attack, the complainant was in the living room with his wife, Jacqueline Gahimbare, and her
cousin, Gérard Niyonkuru. The family’s only child was playing with other children in the
neighbourhood and was not at home at the time of the attack.
2.3
On seeing the assailants, the complainant rushed into his room to get his service rifle.
Before he had taken up his gun, he heard the explosion of a grenade and gunshots. He realized
that his wife and her cousin had just been murdered.3 After several exchanges of gunfire
through the closed door, lasting around 30 minutes, the assailants slipped a grenade under
the door, which immediately exploded, hitting the complainant’s lower limbs. Believing that
the grenade had killed him, the assailants fled. The complainant suffered serious injuries to
his lower limbs; he had an acute fracture that left him with a disability affecting his right
ankle.
2.4
Prior to the arrival of the response team, the complainant was in a state of severe
distress caused by the serious injury to his leg and the loss of his wife and her cousin. He was
also extremely anxious about his daughter as he did not know what had happened to her. The
police took some time to respond and the complainant was not admitted to hospital until
around 11 p.m. Seeing his wife’s and her cousin’s bodies when the response team arrived,
the complainant experienced the most unbearable pain and mental torture, aggravated by the
fact that he was taken to hospital in the same jeep ambulance that was transporting the
victims’ bodies.
2.5
The complainant was an inpatient at the Clinique de l’Arche Kigobe, run by Médecins
sans frontières, from 24 April 2016 to 20 May 2016, during which time he continued to
receive death threats.4 He also learned from a colleague that another plan was being made to
assassinate him in the hospital. After a number of complicated procedures, and with the help
of a medical commission set up for the purpose, he obtained permission5 to travel abroad.
Since then, he has been living in exile with his daughter, for security reasons. He continues
to suffer the after-effects of his injuries and trauma.
2.6
According to a psychiatric evaluation report, 6 the complainant has difficulty
concentrating, which prevents him from fulfilling his professional duties. His long-term
physical and psychological sequelae affect his daily life and limit his ability to work.
2.7
To date, no investigation into the attack has been initiated. The complainant has taken
no legal action because he was seriously injured. He was not even able to attend his wife’s
funeral, which took place while he was in intensive care in hospital. The attack constituted a
criminal offence and should normally have been automatically referred to the judicial
1 Chief police officer, second class, a rank equivalent to lieutenant colonel in the army.
2 Secondment letter dated 9 February 2011, on file.
3 His wife was shot several times and blown to pieces by a grenade, while her cousin was shot in the
head at point-blank range.
4 A medical certificate dated 11 May 2016 and a patient discharge form have been added to the file.
5 On file.
6 On file.
CAT/C/83/D/1140/2022
GE.25-20656
3
authorities. However, no criminal investigation officer visited him in hospital, not even to
enquire about what had really happened and thereby establish some leads to use in searching
for the assailants.
2.8
The complainant believes that the authorities of the National Intelligence Service are
the perpetrators and instigators of these offences. According to information provided by
witnesses,7 the assailants reported the outcome of the attack directly to B.P.N., the head of
the socio-professional service within the Internal Intelligence Department, who then relayed
the report to his line manager, E.N. According to the complainant, E.N. was behind the
summary execution of his family. Even before the investigation was under way, and
immediately following the events, B.P.N. telephoned his colleague S.N. to tell him what had
happened to the complainant and to report on the outcome of the attack. According to a report
issued by Forum pour la conscience et le développement, a Burundian association, S.N. was
reported missing a week after the attack. The perpetrators of the attack were identified by the
complainant as soldiers who had provided security for Mr. Ikurakure and who lived in the
same neighbourhood as the complainant.8
Complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 2 (1)
and 12–14, read in conjunction with article 1 or, in the alternative, with article 16 of the
Convention, and under article 16 of the Convention, read alone.
3.2
The complainant states that, in view of the danger that he and his family would face
if he attempted to take any action before the domestic courts, and in view of the serious
human rights violations in Burundi and the fact that domestic remedies are objectively
ineffective, such remedies are unavailable. Given the identity of the perpetrators – security
agents of the late Lieutenant Colonel Darius Ikurakure, considered to be one of the powerful
authorities involved in repressing the demonstrations of April 2015 – it would be particularly
dangerous for the complainant to initiate any steps 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 the victims and their families.9 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 Burundi10 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, given the failings of the judicial system and the persistent climate
of abuse and impunity,11 it would be futile for the complainant to pursue any remedy.
3.3
According to the complainant, the abuse inflicted on him caused him severe suffering,
which still has a lingering impact on his physical and psychological health. The aim of the
uniformed soldiers who attacked his home was to cause such suffering. In addition, he was
denied access to care. These acts of torture, intentionally inflicted by the military, were
intended to punish him for his alleged involvement in the murder of the late Lieutenant
Colonel Darius Ikurakure. The complainant maintains that this abuse constitutes torture
within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.
3.4
The complainant, invoking article 2 (1) of the Convention, submits that the State Party
failed to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture under its jurisdiction. In particular,
State actors such as soldiers directly participated in the commission of acts constituting
torture. Despite several threats being reported to the National Intelligence Service, nothing
was done to protect the complainant.
3.5
The complainant argues that, as the police responded and witnessed the serious
consequences of the attack on his home (two dead bodies, one seriously injured person and
7 He provides no further details.
8 The complainant provides the names and photos of the alleged assailants.
9 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 26. See also A/HRC/39/CRP.1, para. 569.
10 A/HRC/36/54, para. 13.
11 A/HRC/39/CRP.1, para. 576.
CAT/C/83/D/1140/2022
4
GE.25-20656
extensive material damage to the house), and despite the fact that no complaint was filed, the
authorities were obliged to open an ex officio investigation and take the necessary steps to
prosecute the perpetrators of the murder and torture in question. Four years after the events,
despite the authorities having had reasonable grounds to believe that acts of murder and
torture had been committed, no investigation has been launched. The complainant claims that
these facts constitute a violation of article 12 of the Convention.
3.6
With regard to article 14 of the Convention, the complainant considers that, by failing
to initiate 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 expressed its concern
specifically 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. 12 In 2016, it reiterated its concerns about the need to guarantee adequate
compensation in accordance with article 14.13
3.7
The complainant reaffirms that the violent acts inflicted on him constitute torture, as
defined 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 points out that, when help arrived, the police officers
transported the bodies of the persons who had been murdered in a cowardly manner in the
same vehicle that he was in, which, in and of itself, constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment for a person who had just lost his family in such tragic circumstances. It should
therefore be established that the conditions in which the complainant was transported to the
hospital additionally constituted inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
State Party’s failure to cooperate
4.
On 18 July 2022 and 17 October 2024, the State Party was invited to submit its
observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. The Committee notes that it
has received no response and regrets the lack of cooperation from the State Party in sharing
its observations on the present complaint. It recalls that the State Party is obliged, pursuant
to the Convention, to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying
the matter and indicating the measures, if any, that may have been taken to remedy the
situation.14
Consideration of admissibility
5.1
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.
5.2
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. The Committee notes the complainant’s explanation that it would be particularly
12 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 18.
13 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 27 (d).
14 Ndagijimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/496/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/496/2012/Corr.1), para. 7;
Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 and CAT/C/62/D/493/2012/Corr.1), para. 7; and
Ntikarahera v. Burundi (CAT/C/52/D/503/2012), para. 4.
CAT/C/83/D/1140/2022
GE.25-20656
5
dangerous for him to initiate any steps to establish the responsibility of State agents who
enjoy total impunity, and that domestic remedies are unavailable in view of the identity of
the perpetrators, the danger that he and his family would face if he attempted to take any
action before the domestic courts, and the serious human rights violations in Burundi, as well
as the objective ineffectiveness of domestic remedies.
5.3
The Committee recalls that article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention provides for two
exceptions to the rule governing the exhaustion of domestic remedies; the relevant exception
in the present case is that which applies when remedies are unlikely to bring effective relief
to the person who is the victim of a 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 the
receipt of complaints of torture or ill-treatment and that existing investigation bodies lacked
the necessary independence, as they belonged to the same structure as the alleged
perpetrators.15 The Committee notes with concern that while it had taken note of the “many
consistent, ongoing allegations”16 of torture and ill-treatment, according to the State Party’s
statistics, cited in another case examined by the Committee, only one case went to trial in
2020, one in 2021, none in 2022 and two in 2023.17 Furthermore, in its previous decisions
concerning individual communications against the State Party, the Committee has already
highlighted major shortcomings in the procedure for providing complainants with an
effective remedy.18
5.4
Given that the State Party has not provided any information concerning the
admissibility of the communication, as required under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention,
and in view of the limited information provided by the State Party on this subject in other
communications, the Committee considers that it has not been established that effective
remedies for reporting acts of torture had been, in practice, made available to the complainant
to enable him to assert his rights under the Convention.19 The Committee notes the findings
of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi concerning numerous cases of Burundian citizens
who, on returning to Burundi after having fled abroad, were subjected to arrest, arbitrary
detention, acts of torture and ill-treatment, enforced disappearance and assassination.20 It also
takes note of the risks to which the complainant, his relatives or his legal counsel might be
exposed if they lodged a complaint on his behalf, of the lack of a specific and truly
independent and confidential mechanism tasked with receiving complaints of torture or
ill-treatment, and of the absence of a mechanism which could enable victims to lodge
complaints from abroad. In the particular circumstances of the present case, given the lack of
cooperation by the State Party and the particular situation in which the complainant found
himself, the Committee must conclude that domestic remedies have not proved effective in
his case.21
5.5
In the absence of any other obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, the
Committee proceeds with its consideration of the merits of the claims submitted by the
complainant under articles 2 (1), 12–14 and 16 of the Convention.
Consideration of the merits
6.1
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
15 CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 10.
16 Ibid.
17 E.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/82/D/1105/2021), para. 7.2.
18 For example, Nshimirimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/79/D/1039/2020), paras. 6.3 and 6.4; Ndarisigaranye
v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/493/2012), 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; 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.
19 Nshimirimana v. Burundi, para. 6.4.
20 A/HRC/48/68, para. 40 ff.; and A/HRC/45/CRP.1, paras. 440 ff.
21 E.N. v. Burundi, 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.
CAT/C/83/D/1140/2022
6
GE.25-20656
Convention. As the State Party has not provided any observations on the merits, due weight
must be given to the complainant’s allegations, which have been properly substantiated.22
6.2
The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that he was injured by a grenade
thrown by soldiers, who abandoned him to his fate without providing the slightest assistance.
In this respect, the Committee takes note of the medical documents attesting to his grenade
wound and its subsequent impact on his health. The Committee then takes note of the
complainant’s allegation that his wife and her cousin were murdered during the same
incident. It also takes note of the complainant’s allegations that the grenade that hit him had
been thrown intentionally by State agents, who did not assist him when he was injured in
order to punish him. It also takes note of the complainant’s allegations that serious threats
have been directed at him by soldiers. The Committee notes that the State Party has not
contested these facts. In these circumstances, it concludes that the facts as presented by the
complainant constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.23
6.3
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 it 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.24
In the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s allegations that he was
injured by a grenade thrown by soldiers. It also notes that the State Party did not take any
measures to protect the complainant, despite the fact that he had reported the threats directed
at him prior to the attack by the soldiers. Lastly, the State authorities have not taken any steps
to investigate the acts of torture suffered by the complainant and impose the appropriate
punishment, even on the assumption that the State Party first became aware of the
complainant’s allegations at the time of the transmission of the present complaint on 18 July
2022.25 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1), read in
conjunction with article 1, of the Convention.26
6.4
With regard to article 12 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the
complainant’s allegations that on 24 April 2016, five uniformed soldiers attacked him at his
home, killed his wife and her cousin and threw a grenade at the complainant, leaving him to
die from his injuries. Even supposing that the State Party became aware of these events only
when the present communication was transmitted to it on 18 July 2022, there has been no
investigation almost 10 years after the events and more than three years after the submission
of the present complaint. The Committee considers that so long a delay in initiating an
investigation into allegations of torture is patently unjustified. 27 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. The Committee therefore finds a violation
of article 12 of the Convention.
6.5
The State Party also failed to meet its obligation, under article 13 of the Convention,
to uphold the complainant’s right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and
impartially examined by, its competent authorities.28 The Committee therefore also finds a
violation of article 13 of the Convention.
6.6
Regarding the complainant’s claims under article 14 of the Convention, the
Committee recalls that this article not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate
compensation but also requires States Parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture
obtains redress. The Committee recalls that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the
22 See, inter alia, N.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/74/D/795/2017), para. 6.1.
23 E.N. v. Burundi, para. 9.2.
24 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.
25 Nkunzimana v. Burundi, para. 7.3; and E.N. v. Burundi, para. 9.4.
26 Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.4; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.3; and Niyonzima v. Burundi,
para. 8.4.
27 E.N. v. Burundi, para. 9.5.
28 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.5.
CAT/C/83/D/1140/2022
GE.25-20656
7
victim and encompasses, among other measures, restitution, compensation and guarantees of
non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of each case.29 In the
present case, in the absence of a prompt and impartial investigation, despite clear material
evidence that the complainant was the victim of acts of torture, which have gone unpunished,
the Committee concludes that the State Party has also failed to fulfil its obligations under
article 14 of the Convention.30
6.7
Regarding the claim under article 16 of the Convention, the Committee takes note of
the complainant’s claims concerning the fact that he was transported to the hospital in the
same jeep ambulance as the bodies of his wife and her cousin. In the absence of any
information from the State Party on this matter, the Committee considers that the conditions
described, being characterized by disregard for the complainant’s vulnerability, the lack of
basic safeguards, and exposure to such degrading treatment, constitute inhuman and
degrading treatment. The Committee therefore concludes that the State party has violated its
obligations under article 16 of the Convention, including the obligation to prevent any
treatment that violates the dignity and physical integrity of persons in its charge.
7.
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 12–14, read in conjunction
with article 1, and of article 16 of the Convention.
8.
The Committee deeply regrets that the State Party has failed to respond to its repeated
requests to comment on the admissibility and merits of the present communication, thereby
preventing the Committee from considering the case and resolving the issues raised in the
communication under the Convention. As the State Party has failed to respond to the
Committee’s requests to submit observations, thereby refusing to cooperate with it and
preventing it from effectively considering the elements of the complaint, the Committee,
acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the State Party’s refusal to
cooperate with it constitutes a violation by the State Party of article 22 of the Convention.
The Committee remains deeply concerned about the State Party’s failure to cooperate with
the individual complaints procedure31 and invites the State Party to re-establish full dialogue
and cooperation with the Committee in the examination of individual communications.32
9.
The Committee urges the State Party to (a) initiate a thorough and impartial
investigation into the incidents in question, entrusted to an independent body, with reference
also to 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, in order to prosecute and punish those responsible for the complainant’s
treatment; (b) provide the complainant with appropriate redress, including compensation for
material and non-material damages, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of
non-repetition; and (c) 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.
29 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.6. See also Ntikarahera v. Burundi, (CAT/C/52/D/503/2012), para. 6.5.
30 Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.7; and E.N. v. Burundi, para. 9.6.
31 CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 47. See also Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 7; Ndagijimana v. Burundi,
para. 7; Ntikarahera v. Burundi, para. 4; O.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/71/D/843/2017), para. 4; R.M. v.
Burundi (CAT/C/72/D/793/2017), para. 4; M.D. v. Burundi (CAT/C/73/D/921/2019), para. 4;
Ndayirukiye v. Burundi (CAT/C/73/D/952/2019), para. 7; and Nshimirimana v. Burundi, para. 10.
32 CAT/C/BDI/CO/3, para. 48.