CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 to submit his complaint to the same person that had refused to take action in his case. Such an approach had no prospect of success. 2.10 Accordingly, the complainant submits that (a) the available domestic remedies have given him no satisfaction, as the authorities have not responded to his complaints, whereas they should have opened a criminal investigation on the basis of his allegations; (b) the domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged, since more than five years have passed since the incidents took place and no investigation has been opened; and (c) it was dangerous for him to take any other steps, since the persons responsible for the acts of torture in question were senior officials in the National Intelligence Service and persons affiliated with the current Government. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims to be the victim of a violation by Burundi of his rights under articles 2 (1) and 11 to 14, read in conjunction with article 1, and, alternatively, with article 16 of the Convention. 3.2 According to the complainant, the abuse to which he was subjected caused him acute pain and suffering and constitutes acts of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. The Intelligence Service officers, who are agents of the State, armed with sticks, batons and wires beat him for more than two hours in order to extract a confession from him. This suffering was inflicted intentionally, as evidenced by the fact that the objects used to beat the complainant had previously been placed in sand so that it would get into the wounds sustained during the beating and by the fact that the torture was filmed by one of the persons present. 3.3 The complainant adds that the State party has not taken the necessary measures, legislative or otherwise, to prevent the practice of torture in Burundi, as required under article 2 (1) of the Convention. During the seven days that he was held in the Intelligence Service cell, the complainant had no access to a lawyer, was unable to receive visits from his family and received no treatment. According to the complainant, the State party also failed in its duty to investigate the acts of torture inflicted on him in order to bring those responsible to justice. Furthermore, despite the 2009 reform of the Criminal Code, there are still legal obstacles in the way of effectively preventing the practice of torture. In particular, there is no provision of law explicitly rejecting the validity of confessions obtained under torture, and article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires only that “if it is proved that confessions of guilt have been obtained under duress, they shall be null and void”. In addition, the complainant points out that in Burundian law, apart from the special circumstances of war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide, acts of torture committed outside these specific contexts are subject to a statute of limitations of 20 or 30 years depending on the circumstances. 5 Accordingly, the complainant submits that the State party has failed to take the legislative or other measures required under article 2 (1) of the Convention. 3.4 The complainant submits that the Burundian authorities did not properly monitor his treatment during his detention on the premises of the National Intelligence Service: he had no access to a lawyer; he was unable to appeal his detention; he was not examined by a doctor; and he was unable to communicate with his family to inform them of his arrest. In this regard, the complainant claims that there is no system of effective, systematic monitoring of places of detention and that the practices of the Burundian authorities, in particular the National Intelligence Service, in respect of persons deprived of their liberty do not conform to the requirements of article 11 of the Convention. 3.5 Although the Burundian authorities were informed about the torture of the complainant, they failed to carry out a prompt and effective investigation, in violation of their obligation under article 12 of the Convention. The complainant also points out that 5 4 Criminal Code of Burundi, art. 150. GE.18-00819