CAT/C/52/D/503/2012 the formal registration of his complaint, thereby, according to the complainant, violating article 50 of Act No. 1/07 of 25 February 2005 governing the Supreme Court.6 On 28 March 2012, the complainant once again went to the Supreme Court to enquire if any action had been taken in response to his complaint, but the registrar refused to give him any information. Thus, the complainant maintains, more than 18 months after the events, no investigation has been opened. 2.10 The complainant recalls that, in addition to these procedural initiatives, the offences against him were publicly reported in broadcasts of the Radio Publique Africaine (see para. 2.6). Consequently, the Burundian governmental and administrative authorities must certainly have had knowledge of the offences, and this was demonstrated by the visit of the municipal police commissioner of Bujumbura to the radio station the day after the broadcast. The complainant also stresses that the strike by the staff of Prince Regent Charles Hospital drew attention to the abuse to which he was being subjected. He adds that, on 29 October 2010, the newspaper Iwacu, which has a very wide readership in the country, published an article about the incident.7 The article referred to the position of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture in Burundi, an organization whose president had called on the judicial authorities to take action in the complainant’s case. In the light of these public denunciations, there was no way that the Burundian authorities could have been unaware of the offences committed against the complainant. However, no action was taken to ensure that these grave offences were investigated, that the perpetrators of the acts were prosecuted and punished, or that the complainant received redress. 2.11 The complainant underlines the fact that, under article 392 of the Criminal Code, any judge who refuses to administer justice after having been petitioned to do so faces a prison sentence of from 8 days to 1 month and/or a fine of from 50,000 to 100,000 Burundian francs. He notes, however, that a case brought on the basis of that provision would have no objective chance of success, since in all likelihood the prosecutor would enjoy the same protection as those who had committed the offences. Given his numerous attempts, all in vain, to institute legal proceedings, as well as the obstacles he encountered when attempting to register his complaint with the Supreme Court, the complainant adds that it is clear that both the judicial and the administrative authorities were not, and are still not, willing to prosecute or punish those responsible. Although they had been clearly identified, the mayor of Bujumbura, the commissioner and the police officers who were with them were not inconvenienced in any way. The mayor still holds public office and the police commissioner is still with the police and is currently working in Karuzi. 2.12 Besides the clear refusal of the authorities to determine responsibility in this case, the complainant draws attention to the general climate of impunity in Burundi, particularly with regard to acts of torture, which has been the subject of numerous reports issued by international bodies.8 He recalls that the Committee has expressed its concern about the ineffectiveness of the State party’s judicial system and has encouraged it to “take vigorous measures to eliminate the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of acts of torture and illtreatment, whether they are State officials or non-State actors” and to “conduct timely, impartial and exhaustive inquiries; try the perpetrators of such acts and, if they are found guilty, sentence them to punishment commensurate with the gravity of the acts committed; and provide adequate compensation to the victims”.9 According to the complainant, the 6 7 8 9 GE.14-04314 Article 50 of that law states that acknowledgements of receipt shall be issued for all requests, applications and memorandums submitted to the clerk of the court. A copy is attached to the complaint. The complainant refers specifically to the Committee’s concluding observations concerning the initial report of Burundi (CAT/C/BDI/CO/1), adopted on 20 November 2006, para. 21. Ibid., para. 11. 5