CAT/C/56/D/578/2013 not impartial is also attested to by the authorities’ failure to take action against the police officers involved. Indeed, it belies a desire to protect the perpetrators of torture in a case that was quite straightforward, since identifying the persons involved would not have been difficult to do and there were witnesses present at the scene. The decision to classify the acts in question as assault, even though the complainant was severely beaten, lost consciousness and suffered a debilitating fracture of his arm, as well as various other injuries, further confirms the inefficacy and lack of impartiality of the investigation. Consequently, the State party has acted without regard for its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. 3.6 With respect to article 13 of the Convention, the complainant maintains that the State party was under an obligation to ensure that he had the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. However, in spite of the complainant’s efforts, and even though an investiga tion was begun and, on 13 December 2012, the prosecution service asked the Rohero local court to set a date for the hearing, the case has yet to be heard by the Rohero court, and the judicial authorities have taken no action against the only police officer to have been investigated. The complainant therefore concludes that the State party should be found to be in violation of article 13 of the Convention. 3.7 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, as a victim of torture, of an enforceable right to compensation. Furthermore, given the inaction of the judicial authorities, other remedies to obtain redress, such as, for example, a civil suit for damages, have no realistic prospect of success. The Burundian authorities have taken very few steps to compensate victims of torture, a point raised by the Committee in its concluding observations concerning the State party’s initial report in 2006 (CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 23). The complainant adds that he has not received any type of rehabilitation assistance to help him to recover as fully as possible in physical, mental, social and financial terms. He can no longer work as a bus driver because of the physical consequences of his injuries, and he has found it very difficult to reintegrate himself into his professional and social life. The fact that the crimes committed against him remain unpunished, that his torturers have been neither convicted nor prosecuted and that they have not been subject to any investigation or to any other sort of action against them demonstrates that there has been a violation of his right to redress under article 14 of the Convention. 3.8 The complainant reiterates that the violence inflicted upon him constitutes torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. However, in the alternative, even if the Committee were to decide not to characterize it as such, the abuse suffered by the victim in any case constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and 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 so. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 28 April 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. At the outset, the State party notes that the complainant has not exhausted the available domestic remedies, as required under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. Less than 24 hours after the investigation into the incident had been opened, the police officer in charge of the case requested an expert opinion, and a medical certificate was drawn up and issued by a government doctor. After gathering the evidence required to establish the truth, the police officer submitted the case file to the prosecutor’s office, which in turn opened Case No. RMPG 604/NE, which it forwarded to the presiding judge of the local court of Rohero 6/12 GE.16-01380