CAT/C/55/D/553/2013 the torture to which he had been subjected through the public denunciations and questions raised by human rights organizations, and through his own complaints before the judges. At the first hearings before a judge on 14 February and 1 March 2010, he complained of the torture he had suffered. His body was covered with the visible marks of torture and he still had great difficulty in walking 16 days after the violence to which he had been subjected. The judges would have been able to see for themselves that he had been tortured. Similarly, at the following hearing before a judge on 1 March 2010, the victim again reported that he had been subjected to torture. The authorities did not, however, take the allegations into account , no expert was summoned and no investigation was opened concerning the events reported. 3.11 In his submissions of 21 September and 26 October 2010 in the appeal to the military court, and subsequently in the appeal to the Supreme Court, X again complained of the torture to which he had been subjected, supporting his allegations with a medical certificate. Faced with the inaction of the judicial authorities, on 7 November 2012 he submitted a complaint to the Chief Military Prosecutor concerning the injuries he had suffered at the hands of public officials. Nevertheless, to this day, over three years after the events, 16 no investigation has been initiated. The complainant has never been called to testify and the perpetrators, who would be easily identifiable, have never been troubled by the law. The complainant concludes that, since it has not carried out a genuine, prompt and effective investigation of the allegations of the torture he had suffered, the State party has acted without regard for its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. 3.12 With respect to article 13 of the Convention, the complainant maintains that the State party was obliged to guarantee his right to bring a complaint before its competent authorities and to ensure that it was promptly and impartially examined. However, in the present case, and despite the formal complaints submitted (as outlined above), no action has been taken in response. The State of Burundi has thus not examined the complainant’s allegations of torture promptly and impartially, in violation of article 13 of the Convention. 3.13 The complainant also invokes article 14 of the Convention, since the State party, in preventing him from initiating criminal proceedings has, by the same token, prevented him from obtaining compensation for torture. Furthermore, given the failure of the judicial authorities to take action, other remedies, such as seeking compensation through a civil suit for damages, would have no realistic prospect of success. The Burundian authorities have taken few measures to compensate victims of torture, a point raised by the Committee in its concluding observations of 2006 concerning the State party’s initial report (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 23). The complainant further states that he has received no assistance that would enable him to achieve as full rehabilitation as possible with respect to his physical, psychological, social and financial well-being. He has not been allowed to return to the army and has encountered significant difficulties in resuming professional and social activity. In addition, the fact that the crimes committed against him remain unpunished, that his torturers have been neither convicted nor prosecuted, and that they have not been the subject of any investigation nor even troubled by the law, demonstrates that there has been a violation of his right to redress under article 14 of the Convention. 3.14 With reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 17 the complainant also invokes article 15 of the Convention. He maintains that the purpose of the torture to which he was subjected was to intimidate him during the ensuing interrogation in order to obtain a confession of his involvement in the alleged attempt ed coup d’état. He was also openly threatened with further torture if he did not admit his involvement in the __________________ 16 17 GE.15-16736 More than five years at the present time. Communication No. 193/2001, P.E. v. France, decision adopted on 21 November 2002. 9/16