CAT/C/55/D/553/2013 plot and was forced to sign a confession concerning his participation in the preparation of the alleged coup d’état. It was on the basis of those confessions that proceedings were brought against him and that he was convicted of military conspiracy. The authorities did not take his allegations of torture into account and did not investigate the methods used to obtain the confessions. Therefore, the complainant maintains that the State party violated article 15 with respect to his case. 3.15 The complainant reiterates that the violence to which he was subjected constituted torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. Nevertheless, and alternatively, even if the Committee were not to characterize it as such, he maintains that the abuse he suffered constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and, accordingly, that the State party was obliged, under article 16 of the Convention, to prevent and punish the commission, instigation or tolerance of such acts by public officials. Furthermore, the complainant recalls that he was held at the First Military Region headquarters, at the Muha camp and then in prisons in Bubanza and Bujumbura in deplorable conditions. He also refers to the concluding observations of the Committee, following the State party’s initial report, in which the Committee noted that conditions of detention in Burundi amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 17). He further recalls that he did not receive medical treatment and that he was reincarcerated while still convalescing. In conclusion, he maintains that, by subjecting him to detention that amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, the State of Burundi did not fulfil its obligations under article 16. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 16 August and 14 October 2013, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party notes firstly that the communication should be declared inadmissible since the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies. The various appeals which he has lodged with the political and administrative authorities do not constitute recourse to judicial remedies, since none of the authorities to which the appeals were submitted were competent to give a ruling on the case. The only valid appeal lodged by the complainant was the complaint filed with the Military Prosecutor on 7 November 2012, less than one year ago. Instead of awaiting the outcome of the investigations, the complainant has applied in haste to the Committee. The appeal is still under consideration by the Military Prosecutor, and the State party invites the complainant to cooperate with the justice system in establishing the facts. 4.2 On the merits of the case, the State party maintains that the arguments of the complainant are the result of his imagination or are based on insufficient information. 4.3 On 14 October 2013, the State party submitted additional observations on the merits of the complaint. It notes in the first place that the complaina nt has brought no proof to substantiate his allegations of torture. He was caught in the act of attempting to destabilize institutions of the State and his responsibility, as well as that of his co accused, was established by all the jurisdictions. The injuries sustained by some of the alleged putschists were caused by their resisting security officers. “If they had willingly surrendered, they would not have been subjected to the many misadventures which they have improperly termed torture”. During their arrest, the “suspected conspirators”, who were carrying firearms, resisted the SNR agents, which led to altercations. The measures taken by the SNR agents in order to avoid being killed or injured must be considered as acts of self-defence, and not as torture inflicted on the detainees. 4.4 The conditions of detention, which are due to a lack of resources and are experienced by all detainees in Burundi, cannot be defined as torture. The complainant 10/16 GE.15-16736