CAT/C/55/D/553/2013 while pointing a weapon at his head. When he was tied up with his hands behind his back, having been completely overpowered by the State officials, they dealt him further blows to the head, sometimes with the butts of their rifles. The force of the blows caused the complainant to lose consciousness for several minutes. After being taken to First Military Region headquarters, he was interrogated and, fearing further abuse, signed statements attesting to his involvement in planning a coup d’état. The day after his arrest, he was put in a room with no ventilation or window. He was denied contact with the outside world until 1 February 2010. 7.3 The Committee observes that the State party has merely denied and minimized the complainant’s allegations of torture, without producing any convincing evidence to refute the acts described. Furthermore, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the injuries sustained by the complainant were caused by his resistance to law enforcement officials. However, corroborated and credible evidence reveal s that the injuries occurred while the claimant was under the control of the State party’s authorities. The Committee thereby deduces that acts of torture were inflicted on the complainant at the time of his arrest, as well as during subsequent interrogations, and concludes that all of these acts constituted a violation of article 1 of the Convention. 7.4 Regarding article 16, the Committee has taken note of the complainant ’s claim that the detention conditions he had to endure at First Military Region headquarters, Camp Muha and Bubanza and Bujumbura prisons were deplorable (paras. 2.9, 2.13, 2.15 and 2.19). Moreover, the complainant did not receive the prompt medical care that his condition required. The Committee recalls its concluding observations on the second periodic report of the State party, in which it expressed alarm at the conditions of detention (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 15). In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the detention conditions to which the complainant was exposed from the time of his arrest on 29 January 2010 to his release on 24 December 2012 constituted a separate violation of article 16 of the Convention. 7.5 The complainant also invokes article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, under which the State party is required to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. The Committee observes in this respect that the complainant was severely beaten and then detained without being allowed to contact his family immediately or have access to legal or medical assistance. It was not until 14 February 2010 that he was brought before a judge, to whom he complained of the torture he had suffered. Even though the authorities have been fully informed of the acts perpetrated against X, the torture inflicted on him remains unpunished and, more than five years after the acts were committed, there is no indication that an independent and effectiv e investigation has been launched. In this respect, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that the State party has an obligation to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 18 The Committee consequently finds a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention. 19 7.6 The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 was violated because the State party failed to conduct proper monitoring of the treatment he received while in detention. The Committee again recalls its latest concluding observations on Burundi, in which it expressed concern at: the excessive length of time during which people can be held in police custody; numerous instances in which __________________ 18 19 14/16 See communications No. 269/2005, Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 7 November 2007, para. 16.7; and No. 402/2009, Abdelmalek v. Algeria, decision adopted on 23 May 2014, para. 11.7. See communication No. 514/2012, Niyonzima v. Burundi, decision adopted on 21 November 2014, para. 8.3. GE.15-16736