CAT/C/55/D/553/2013 “police custody, as defined in the article [59], may not exceed 7 days counted from hour to hour, except where an extension is deemed essential, as determined by the public prosecutor’s office and up to a maximum of twice that period”. The complainant was not authorized to receive visits during the early days of his detention. Nor did he have access to a lawyer during the weeks following his arrest. Therefore, he did not receive prompt legal assistance. 3.7 Furthermore, while his state of health unquestionably necessitated medical treatment, X received no treatment, despite his repeated requests to see a doctor, until 19 March 2010, almost seven weeks after he had been subjected to torture . On that date he was admitted to the hospital as a matter of urgency following a sudden decline in his health. By their refusal to allow him prompt treatment, the Burundian authorities prevented a medical certificate from being issued and thereby denied him the possibility of seeking justice in an effective manner. A medical certificate was finally issued on 15 July 2010, five and a half months after the events. Although the certificate notes the complainant’s “severe neuropsychiatric disorder, probably posttraumatic in origin”, in view of the time lapse it only partially reflects the gravity of his state of health following the torture. In addition, hospitalization prevented the complainant from attending the court hearings against him which led to his convictions for military conspiracy by the court martial, a circumstance that was a serious obstacle to mounting an effective defence. 3.8 The complainant adds that his case is not an isolated one and that serious human rights violations by police officers in Burundi go largely unpunished. Since it has not taken the legislative and other measures necessary to prevent the practice of torture, the State party has, according to the complainant, failed to fulfil its obligations under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 3.9 The complainant also invokes article 11 of the Convention, noting that the State party failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the custody and treatment of persons subject to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment. He was not informed of the charges against him, he did not have access to a lawyer and he was not brought before a judge in connection with his pretrial detention until 16 days after his arrest, even though the Code of Criminal Procedure sets a time limit of 7 days, unless an extension up to a maximum of 14 days is deemed necessary by the public prosecutor ’s office. He was not examined by a doctor, despite his critical condition. Nor did he have access to legal counsel. As a result, the complainant concludes that the State party failed in its duty to monitor the treatment he received during his detention. 14 3.10 The complainant further maintains that article 12 of the Co nvention, which requires the authorities to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed, has been violated by the State party in his case. 15 He recalls that it is not necessary, for the purpose of article 12, for a formal complaint to have been lodged. In fact, he recalls that in the days that followed the events in question, the authorities were informed of __________________ 14 15 8/16 The complainant recalls that, in its concluding observations on the State party’s initial periodic report, the Committee expressed concern at the lack of systematic and effective monitoring of all places of detention, notably through regular unannounced visits by national inspectors and a mechanism for legislative and judicial monitoring ( see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 19). The complainant notes in his initial complaint that the State party had not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which calls for the establishment of a national mechanism for the prevention of torture. [The State party subsequently became a party to the Optional Protocol on 18 October 2013.] The complainant refers to communication No. 341/2008, Sahli v. Algeria, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 9.6; communication No. 187/2001, Thabti v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 10.4; communication No. 60/1996, M’Barek v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 10 November 1999, para. 11.7; and communication No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.2. GE.15-16736