CAT/C/RWA/CO/2 Impunity for acts of torture and ill-treatment 22. The Committee expresses concern at the fact that, despite the numerous allegations of torture raised by detainees during their trials, since 2012 only 11 cases of torture have been prosecuted and six persons have been convicted. While noting the information that victims of torture in military custody have rarely filed formal complaints about their treatment for fear of reprisals, the Committee is concerned by the delegation’s position that the onus regarding crimes of torture should be on the complainant, who should prove the allegation. It is also concerned at the State party’s failure to clarify whether it has ever initiated an investigation ex officio on the basis of allegations of torture or as a result of information reported by doctors, despite the questions raised during the dialogue (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16). 23. The Committee urges the State party to establish an independent oversight mechanism to facilitate the submission of complaints by victims of torture and illtreatment and to ensure prompt, impartial and effective investigations into all these allegations. The State party should also: (a) Ensure that all allegations of torture and ill-treatment are promptly investigated in an impartial manner by the independent mechanism, that there is no institutional or hierarchical relationship between that body’s investigators and suspected perpetrators of such acts, and that the suspected perpetrators are duly tried and, if found guilty, punished in a manner that is commensurate with the gravity of their acts; (b) Ensure that the authorities launch investigations ex officio whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture or ill-treatment has been committed; (c) Ensure that, in cases of alleged torture and ill-treatment, suspected perpetrators are suspended from duty immediately for the duration of the investigation, particularly when there is a risk that they might otherwise be in a position to repeat the alleged act, commit reprisals against the alleged victim or obstruct the investigation; (d) Ensure that complainants are protected against any reprisal as a consequence of their complaint or any evidence given; (e) Compile disaggregated statistical information relevant to the monitoring of the Convention, including data on complaints, investigations, prosecutions and convictions in cases of torture and ill-treatment. Excessive pretrial detention 24. The Committee is concerned that, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, persons suspected of offences punishable with at least two years’ imprisonment can be placed in provisional detention pending investigation without the need to specify any other ground. As regards offences punishable with lower penalties, the Committee notes with concern that provisional detention could be ordered if it is “in the interest of public safety” (art. 2). 25. The Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Amend its legislation with a view to reducing the use of pretrial detention, which should be applied only as an exceptional measure, on the basis of an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary taking into account all the circumstances, and not based on a particular penalty or vague standards such as “public security”; (b) Ensure increased use of alternatives to pretrial detention, in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) and the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules); 6