CAT/C/55/D/553/2013 2.30 With regard to the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant claims that on numerous occasions he alerted the Burundian authorities to the treatment he had suffered. In fact, the torture inflicted on him by the members of the army and SNR personnel was reported at the first hearing before a judge, on 14 February 2010, and again at the hearing on 1 March 2010. In his submission dated 21 September 2010, supplemented by the one dated 26 October 2010 in the appeal lodged with the military court, and also in his appeal to the Supreme Court of 17 March 2011, the complainant again stated that he had been the victim of torture and that he had provided medical certificates in support of his claims. He also made it clear that he had confessed to certain allegations under torture. Lastly, on 7 November 2012 he filed a complaint with the Chief Military Prosecutor describing the abuse he had suffered. However, no action was taken in response to his complaints. He has never been called to testify regarding the torture he suffered, and the alleged perpetrators, who would be easily identifiable, have never been summoned to court. The complainant maintains that a period of three years and three months to open an investigation into allegations of torture constitutes an ex cessive delay that justifies the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In addition, he argues that, in view of the threats he has received and the risks he and his family face, he cannot be reasonably expected to initiate additional procedures with the authorities, who have, moreover, demonstrated their lack of interest in the matter. The complaint 3.1 The complainant alleges that he has been the victim of violations by the State party of articles 2 (para. 1), 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, read in conjunction with article 1 or, alternatively, article 16 of the Convention. 3.2 With regard to the ill-treatment described above, which was documented by human rights associations and medical certificates, the complainant invokes article 1 of the Convention. He was not examined by a doctor despite his critical condition. Furthermore, he currently suffers from serious physical after -effects of the torture. 3.3 The complainant further states that he was subjected to unbearable conditions of detention, that he was held in a confined space in the First Military Region, without ventilation or a window, with 18 other persons, and that he was prevented from receiving visitors. He was then taken to the Muha military camp and held with another detainee in a windowless cell measuring 2 m². He was forced to sleep on the floor and was served rotten food. He was then transferred to Bubanza prison, where he was subjected to deplorable conditions of detention. The conditions in Mpimba prison were no less disturbing, with overcrowding and insufficient food. In addition, when the complainant’s health began to seriously deteriorate, he was hospitalized for about three months. Then, on 23 June 2010 while he was recovering, he was taken back to prison. 3.4 The complainant adds that the severity and nature of the ill-treatment to which he was subjected demonstrated that it was deliberate and that it was clearly intended to punish him for planning to destabilize government institutions. 3.5 There is no doubt that the acts were committed by public officials (national army and SNR personnel). In conclusion, the complainant reiterates that the abuse to which he was subjected amounts to acts of torture, as defined in article 1 of the Convention against Torture. 3.6 The complainant also invokes article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention: he was not brought before a judge with a view to his pretrial detention until 16 days after his arrest, which was considerably outside the time limit to which the authorities should have adhered under article 60 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which require s that: GE.15-16736 7/16