CAT/C/52/D/503/2012 an investigation and prosecuting those responsible.19 The crime committed against the complainant remains unpunished, as his torturers have not been convicted, prosecuted, investigated or troubled in any way at all, which is a violation of his right to redress under article 14 of the Convention. 3.10 The complainant reiterates that the violence inflicted upon him constituted torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. However, alternatively, even if the Committee were not to characterize it as such, the abuse suffered by the victim in any case constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and, accordingly, the State party is obligated, under article 16 of the Convention, to prevent public officials from committing, instigating or tolerating such acts and for punishing them if they do. Furthermore, the complainant recalls the conditions in which he was held during the four days of his arbitrary detention in the jail of the criminal investigation police (see para. 2.4) and refers to the Committee’s concluding observations concerning the State party’s initial report, in which it noted that conditions of detention in Burundi “amount to inhuman and degrading treatment”.20 He recalls that he did not receive medical treatment immediately, despite being in a critical condition, and that the treatment he finally did receive was inadequate in view of his condition. Lastly, he recalls that he was handcuffed for 32 hours. In conclusion, the complainant contends, alternatively, that he was the victim of a violation of article 16 of the Convention. He also maintains that the conditions of detention to which he was exposed amount to a violation of article 16 of the Convention. State party’s failure to cooperate 4. On 13 December 2012, 8 May 2013 and 9 October 2013, the State party was invited to submit its comments on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. The Committee notes that no information has been received in this connection. It regrets the State party’s refusal to communicate any information on the admissibility and/or merits of the complainant’s claims. The Committee recalls that the State party is obligated, pursuant to the Convention, to submit written explanations or statements to the Committee in order to clarify the matter and indicate the steps, if any, that the State party may have taken to remedy the situation. In the absence of a response from the State party, due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations, which have been properly substantiated. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 As required under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 5.2 The Committee recalls with concern that, despite the three reminders sent to it, the State party has not provided any observations. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. The Committee finds no reason not to consider the communication admissible 19 20 GE.14-04314 The complainant refers among other things to communication No. 212/2002, Urra Guridi v. Spain, decision adopted on 17 May 2005, para. 6.8. He adds that these views are in line with the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee (communication No. 563/1993, Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia, Views adopted on 23 October 1995, para. 8.2; communication No. 778/1997, Coronel et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 24 October 2002, para. 6.2) and the European Court of Human Rights (Assenov v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, para. 102 and 117, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VIII; Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, para. 90, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-VI). CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 17. 9