CAT/C/56/D/578/2013 government doctor (para. 2.5) was issued accordingly. However, the investigation focused on a single police officer, who claimed not to know the other officers’ names. 2.8 Since no follow-up action was taken in respect of the medical report and since the investigation was conducted in a manner that was neither effective nor impartial, on 20 September 2012, the complainant contacted the Prosecutor General of the Bujumbura court of appeal to report the acts of torture to which he had been subjected. He recounted in his letter that only one person had been investigated, even though five police officers were implicated in his accusations of torture. 2.9 The complainant emphasizes that the case was covered extensively by the local media, in particular the RPA radio station, which has a large audience and had reported the incident immediately after it occurred, so neither the administrative nor the governmental authorities could be unaware of the events in question. 2.10 On 13 December 2012, the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the Bujumbura court of appeal concluded its investigation of the case and referred it to the local court (tribunal de résidence) of Rohero as Case No. RP 17/2013. The investigating judge noted in the case file that the treatment inflicted upon the complainant had caused “injuries”. The complainant maintains that the investigation focused on just one of the police officers involved, namely Noël Ndayisaba. Although, in the complaint submitted on 20 September 2012, he had stated that the investigation should be expanded to include the other officers involved, that request had not been acted upon. Apparently, the names of the other four police officers were not disclosed by their superior officer. Since the fact that this information was withheld prevented the judicial authorities from establishing the facts of the case, they should have taken action to ascertain the identities of the other officers. In addition, a number of different sources indicated that all the police officers then base d at the station near the SOGEMAC building had since been transferred to other stations. 2.11 The complainant also notes that the police officer was charged with assault, not torture. Given that the investigation was neither complete nor impartial and resu lted in an erroneous classification of the acts in question, the victim visited the investigating judge on numerous occasions in an effort to make the judge aware of the limitations of the investigation and ensure that it was resumed and conducted in a tho rough and comprehensive manner. As these efforts proved fruitless, on 3 February 2013 the complainant again petitioned the Prosecutor General of the Bujumbura court of appeal to ensure that a thorough, effective and comprehensive investigation would finall y be undertaken that would result in the initiation of proceedings against all the alleged perpetrators of the torture inflicted upon him. However, his petitions were not acted upon. Despite the gravity of what occurred, the alleged perpetrators have still not been prosecuted or punished, and the victim has not received any compensation. 2.12 The complainant refers to the various steps that he has taken. He notes that he has endeavoured to exhaust all domestic remedies but that his efforts have been fruitless. He further states that the application of the remedies that he has pursued has been unreasonably prolonged. In addition, he states that it is particularly dangerous for victims of torture to attempt to bring those responsible to justice. The climate of impunity which prevails in Burundi serves only to heighten the danger that he faces. The complainant therefore asks the Committee to waive the requirement regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies and find the communication admissible. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims to be a victim of violations by the State party of articles 2 (1), 11, 12, 13 and 14, read in conjunction with article 1, and, alternatively, with article 16 of the Convention. 4/12 GE.16-01380