CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 treatment while in detention in the Intelligence Service cells, despite his critical condition, and therefore concludes that the conditions of detention he experienced constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 The State party was requested to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication on 27 February 2012. Reminders were sent on 19 November 2012, 15 May 2013, 12 August 2013 and 10 February 2015. On 9 June 2015, the State party submitted observations on the “investigations carried out” and on the admissibility of the communication. First of all, it notes that, as soon as they were apprised of the acts of torture by the complaint lodged by the complainant’s lawyer, the judicial authorities launched an investigation. An investigation was opened against the accused Jean Bosco Nsabimana, alias “Maregarege”, and registered as case No. D15 5604/ B.V with the public prosecutor’s office at Bujumbura city hall. When it was noted that there might be significant evidence of guilt, the same case was registered with the public prosecution service as case No. RMP 123.256/ B.V. on 6 July 2007. Witnesses for the prosecution and the defence were summoned, some of whom have already made statements. However, the defendant categorically rejects the accusations against him, arguing that he was not present at the time of the attempted coup d’état. According to the State party, to date, prosecutors have been engaged in an investigation aimed at securing significant evidence of the perpetrator’s guilt, while at the same time ensuring the necessary guarantees for the exercise of his right of defence, and gathering evidence — for and against the accused — in accordance with the principle of presumption of innocence. 4.2 With respect to admissibility, the State party submits that the Committee should reject the communication under articles 22 (2) and 5 (b) of the Convention on the grounds of abuse of rights, since the complainant voluntarily abandoned the available domestic legal remedies. According to the State party, simply making an application to a protection body is not sufficient because the latter cannot obtain sufficient information on the events in question or the nature of the alleged violations unless the victim and his counsel show a genuine willingness to cooperate and collaborate with the investigation. In the present case, since filing the complaint with the prosecutor’s office, the complainant’s lawyer has not returned to follow up on the case. The State party therefore considers that the complainant’s lawyer filed the complaint without any real intention on the part of the complainant of pursuing the proceedings, which amounts to “intellectual fraud” and indicates bad faith. The State party adds that, since the complainant’s acquittal, he has remained free and he has never been to the prosecutor’s office to follow up on his case. Furthermore, the complainant has lodged no judicial or administrative appeal regarding the lack of promptness on the part of the prosecutor. 4.3 The State party adds that the time limits used for closing the file relating to the acts of torture are not overly long, since the dates on which the complaint was filed and the case referred to the Committee were close together. The period in question does not therefore constitute an unreasonable delay and does not justify any exception to the rule that all available domestic remedies must be exhausted, as required under article 22 (5) of the Convention. In addition, the State party asks the Committee to find that the domestic judicial system provides sufficient safeguards, since recourse to protection procedures is effective. 4.4 The State party concludes that the criminal classification of the acts in question is a matter for the courts and requests the Committee to allow the domestic proceedings to follow their normal course, since the allegations made are merely politically motivated speculation. The State party therefore reiterates its willingness to pursue the case. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 22 July 2015, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He rejects the argument that the communication constitutes an abuse of rights. He refers to the case of Ben Salem v. Tunisia, in which the Committee pointed out that in order for there to be abuse of the right to raise a matter before the Committee under article 6 GE.18-00819