CAT/C/55/D/553/2013 5.6 The complainant rejects the State party’s argument that the submission of a complaint to the Committee entails the abandonment of the complaint he filed on 7 November 2012 with the Burundian judicial authorities. 5.7 On the merits, the complainant rejects the assertions of the State party, which merely contests his allegations without providing any material evidence. He reiterates the arguments put forward in his initial communication and maintains that his allegations of torture are based on a wealth of pertinent material evidence, whereas the State party’s counterarguments are groundless and unsubstantiated. 5.8 The complainant rejects the State party’s argument that the acts inflicted on him were reasonable and inherent consequences of his arrest. He recalls that, when he was subjected to ill-treatment, he was under the full and effective control of agents of the State party, who were present in large numbers and very heavily armed. He had been completely overpowered by them and was lying prone on the ground with his hands tied behind his back, which left him in a vulnerable position in the hands of State officials. In such circumstances, it cannot be argued that the use of violence was part of the arrest or that it served a legitimate purpose such as maintaining law and order. Rather, the acts served an illegitimate purpose, namely, to punish him for a suspected offence. The complainant concludes by reiterating that the acts inflicted on him do constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been examined, and is not currently being examined, under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, inasmuch as the complainant filed a formal criminal complaint of torture with the Military Prosecutor on 7 November 2012. The Committee notes that the State party has indicated that proceedings are ongoing, but it has provided no further information or evidence that might allow the Committee to see what progress has been made and judge how effective the proceedings might be, bearing in mind that they were instituted almost three years ago in response to acts that occurred more than five years ago. The Committee finds that, in the circumstances, the inaction of the c ompetent authorities has made it unlikely that any remedy that might provide effective relief can be initiated and that, in any event, the domestic proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from considering the complaint under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 6.3 In the absence of any impediment to admissibility, the Committee proceeds to a consideration on the merits of the claims submitted by the complainant under articles 1, 2 (para. 1), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, on 29 January 2010 he was arrested by State officials, including an army officer and SNR two agents in plain clothes, who beat him up and kicked him in the chest, ribs, back and head, all the GE.15-16736 13/16