CAT/C/52/D/503/2012 by the State party in his case.16 He recalls that it is not necessary, for the purposes of article 12, for a formal complaint to have been lodged. In the case in question, he recalls that a news report about his case was broadcast on the radio. Given the radio station’s large number of listeners, there is no doubt that the Burundian authorities had heard about the broadcast, as is confirmed by the visit of the police commissioner, one of those responsible for the events, to the radio station. The complainant also draws attention to the strike by the staff of Prince Regent Charles Hospital in support of their colleague. Thus, in addition to the formal complaint lodged with the Public Prosecutor on 5 November 2010, the authorities had been fully informed of the torture to which the complainant was subjected and were consequently under an obligation to investigate these incidents on their own initiative. However, an effective, in-depth and impartial investigation was never conducted. No investigative procedures were carried out, nor were the complainant or the alleged perpetrators brought in for questioning, although they had been identified. The complainant therefore concludes that, as a prompt and impartial investigation was not carried out into the allegations of torture of which he was a victim, the State party acted in violation of its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. 3.8 With respect to article 13 of the Convention, the complainant maintains that the State party was obligated to guarantee his right to file a complaint with the authorities and to have his case promptly and impartially examined. He points out that, in the case in question, he lodged a formal complaint with the Public Prosecutor on 5 November 2010, and with the President of the Supreme Court on 22 July 2011 and again on 2 February 2012, with no results. He recalls that the Committee has stressed the importance of prompt investigations and has found that delays of 15 months, 10 months, 2 months and even 3 weeks are excessive with regard to the requirement to conduct prompt investigations.17 In the case in question, 18 months after the events, no investigation has been conducted. Consequently, he maintains that the State party has acted in violation of article 13 of the Convention. 3.9 The complainant also invokes article 14 of the Convention. He states that, by depriving him of due process, the State party has also deprived him of the enforceable right to compensation for torture. Furthermore, given the inaction of the judicial authorities, other remedies to obtain redress, through a civil suit for damages, for example, have no realistic prospect of success. The Burundian authorities have taken few measures to compensate victims of torture, a point raised by the Committee in its concluding observations concerning the State party’s initial report in 2007.18 The complainant adds that he is still suffering the physical and psychological consequences of the beating he received (see para. 2.7) and that he has never benefited from any form of rehabilitation designed to ensure that he recovers as fully as possible in physical, mental, social and financial terms. He recalls the State party’s obligation to ensure that redress is obtained, including, but not limited to, the provision of compensation for the harm suffered and the adoption of measures to ensure non-repetition, particularly through the imposition of penalties on the perpetrators commensurate with the severity of their acts. This involves, first of all, opening 16 17 18 8 The complainant refers to communication No. 341/2008, Sahli v. Algeria, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 9.6; communication No. 187/2001, Thabti v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 10.4; communication No. 60/1996, M’Barek v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 10 November 1999, para. 11.7; and communication No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.2. The complainant refers to Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, para. 13.5; M’Barek v. Tunisia, para. 11.7; and Blanco Abad v. Spain, para. 8.4. CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 23. GE.14-04314