CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. As the State party has not provided any observations on the merits, due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations. 8.2 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that, on 2 August 2006, he was arrested without a warrant by seven plain-clothes officers of the National Intelligence Service and taken to the Service’s premises. The Committee has further noted the complainant’s allegations that, after he denied any involvement in an alleged coup d’état, Intelligence Service officials beat him severely all over his body; that they put a stone in his mouth to stifle his cries; that, during her visit to the Intelligence Service headquarters on 3 August 2006, the State party’s Minister for National Solidarity, Human Rights and Gender stated that she had personally seen that detainees showed signs of torture; that, according to the medical certificate issued on 17 August 2006, the profusion of lesions of the same kind over almost the entire body was reminiscent of torture; that, despite his requests, the complainant received no medical treatment during the seven days that he was held on the premises of the National Intelligence Service; that the blows that were inflicted on him intentionally in order to extract a confession from him caused him acute pain and suffering. The Committee notes that the State party does not dispute the facts as presented by the complainant. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the complainant’s allegations must be taken fully into account and that the facts as presented constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 8.3 The complainant also invokes article 2 (1) of the Convention, which requires the State party to take “effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction”. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant was beaten and then detained without legal grounds for seven days in the Intelligence Service cells without access to a lawyer, his family or a doctor. It recalls its conclusions and recommendations, in which it called on the State party to take effective legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent all acts of torture and all ill-treatment and to take steps, as a matter of urgency, to bring all places of detention under judicial control and to prevent its officials from making arbitrary arrests and engaging in torture (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 10). In the light of the foregoing, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention.17 8.4 The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 has been violated, inasmuch as the State party failed to properly monitor the treatment he received during his detention on the premises of the National Intelligence Service. In particular, he claims that his detention was unlawful; that he did not have access to legal counsel; that he was unable to appeal his detention; that he was unable to communicate with his family to inform them of his arrest; and that he was not examined by a doctor, despite his critical condition. The Committee recalls its concluding observations regarding the second periodic report of Burundi, in which it expressed concern at: the excessive length of time during which people can be held in police custody; numerous instances in which the allowable duration of police custody has been exceeded; failures to keep registers on persons in custody or failures to ensure that such records are complete; failures to comply with fundamental legal safeguards for persons deprived of their liberty; the absence of provisions that guarantee access to a doctor and access to legal assistance for persons of limited means; and the excessive use of pretrial detention in the absence of regular reviews of its legality and of any limit on its total duration (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10). In the present case, the complainant appears to have been deprived of any form of judicial oversight. The manifest absence of any mechanism for monitoring the cells at the National Intelligence Service, where the complainant was detained, undoubtedly increased the risk of his being subjected to acts of torture and ill-treatment. In the absence of any compelling 17 GE.18-00819 See, inter alia, Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.3. 9