CAT/C/56/D/578/2013 3.2 According to the complainant, the abuse inflicted upon him over a period of more than two hours, during which he was lashed with belts and kicked by officers of the Burundian National Police Force, undeniably constitutes acts of torture 2 as defined in article 1 of the Convention. There is no doubt about the fact that these grave acts, which have been verified medically, were perpetrated intentionally by agents of the State party. 3.3 The complainant invokes article 2 (1) of the Convention, pursuant to which the State party should have taken effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. In the present case, no investigation has been carried out despite the existence of an expert medical report. Furthermore, the inquiries that were made focused on only one suspect, were based on an incorrect legal classification of the acts in question and did not ascertain the part played by the other police officers. The complainant adds that his case is not an isolated one and that serious human rights violations committed by police officers in Burundi largely go unpunished. Since it has not taken the legislative and other measures necessary to prevent the practice of torture, the State party has, according to the complainant, failed to fulfil its obligations under article 2 (1) of the Convention. 3.4 The complainant also invokes article 11 of the Convention and notes that the State party failed to meet its obligations in relation to the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment. His detention was unlawful: he was not formally arrested but was simply placed in police custody in the police station next to SOGEMAC and was not informed of the charges against him. Additionally, given the critical condition in which he was left following his interrogation, it is clear that the Burundian authorities failed to properly supervise how he was treated while in police custody. He was not taken to hospital to receive the urgent medical attention he required until two hours after he had been left lying on the floor, and even then only thanks to a friend who had intervened on his behalf and urged the officer in charge of the station to take action. The complainant adds that there is no effective, independent mechanism for monitoring places of detention in Burundi and concludes that the State party failed in its duty to properly supervise the way in which he was treated while being held at the police station. 3 3.5 The complainant also maintains that the State party has violated article 12 of the Convention in the present case. Under this article, the competent authorities are required to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 4 He recalls that it is not necessary, for the purposes of article 12, for a formal complaint to have been lodged. He also recalls that, in the case in question, the Burundian authorities knew that acts of torture had been committed because an expert opinion had been requested by an officer of the criminal investigation police the day after the incident, i.e., on 16 May 2012. However, no effective, thorough and impartial investigation was undertaken. The investigation that was carried out was incomplete and was not of a nature that would have allowed the facts of the case and, consequently, the responsibility of those involved, to be established. The fact that the investigation was 2 3 4 GE.16-01380 The complainant refers to communication No. 207/2002, Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision adopted on 24 November 2004, para. 5.3. The complainant recalls that, in its concluding observations on the State party’s initial report, the Committee expressed concern at the lack of systematic and effective monitoring of all places of detention, notably through regular unannounced visits by national inspectors and a mechanism for legislative and judicial monitoring (CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 19). The complainant refers to communications No. 341/2008, Salhi v. Algeria, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 9.6; No. 187/2001, Thabti v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 10.4; No. 60/1996, M’Barek v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 10 November 1999, para. 11.7; and No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.2. 5/12