CAT/C/55/D/553/2013 4.10 With regard to his claims relating to the failure to conduct an investigation, the State party notes that it was the responsibility of X to submit a formal complaint to the competent judicial authority. To date, he has already submitted a complaint to the Military Prosecutor, who will not fail to examine the case. The cooperation of X, which is essential to the proceedings, may well be compromised because he appears to have abandoned his complaint and to have appealed to the Committee instead. The State party notes that an appeal for judicial review by the complainant and his co defendants is also pending before the Supreme Court. 4.11 The State party also rejects the complainant’s allegations pertaining to articles 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention. 4.12 With respect to his safety and the protection measures requested by the Committee, the State party submits that X has no reason to fear for his safety. He has already submitted a complaint to the Military Prosecutor and has never had cause to be concerned about his physical security. Moreover, the Government of Burundi has granted him clemency and has released him on parole. At present, he is free to come and go as he pleases, and no threat has been made against him. Therefore, there is no need to formulate special protection measures for him at this time. Complainant’s comments on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 3 October 2013 and 13 January 2014, the complainant submitted com ments on the State party’s observations. With regard to the State party’s argument that he has not exhausted domestic remedies, he asserts that during the first hearings before a judge on 14 February and 1 March 2010 he complained of the to rture inflicted on him. In his appeal to the military court and the appeal for review to the Supreme Court, he again complained of the torture to which he had been subjected. The judicial authorities were therefore informed of these facts. 5.2 As for the State party’s claim that an investigation has been launched, the complainant notes that no evidence has been supplied in this regard, even though the State party should be in a position to provide information on the opening and progress of the investigation, along with the corresponding documentation, including the procedure number and copies of the hearing transcripts or investigation reports. Although the State party maintains that the complainant is the only person who can clarify the facts for the judicial authority, the latter has never questioned him. The other persons arrested under the same circumstances have not been heard as witnesses either. It is thus legitimate, not to say reasonable, to question the existence of an investigation. Even assuming that an investigation into the facts has been launched, the delay of almost four years since their occurrence must be considered unreasonable. 5.3 On the merits, the complainant stands by his initial allegations and refers to them, including the allegations about the shortcomings in the Burundian justice system, which he considers to be amply documented. 5.4 The complainant has submitted further comments in which, firstly, he contests the State party’s observations implying that he cannot complain of the torture to which he was subjected or seek justice because he was released. He contends that the release was neither a favour nor a measure that deprives him of the right to file a complaint about such serious acts. 5.5 Regarding the protection measures granted by the Committee and deemed to be unwarranted by the State party, the complainant recalls that the persons responsible for the torture are high-ranking army officers and SNR agents, which means that he has good reason to fear reprisals, particularly given the widespread impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of such crimes in Burundi. The complainant therefore requests the Committee to maintain the interim protection measures that it has granted. 12/16 GE.15-16736