CAT/C/59/D/549/2013 prior to his departure, and it was their responsibility to investigate the allegations without delay. 5.9 With regard to the claim for compensation, the complainant reiterates that the State party has an obligation under article 14 of the Convention to guarantee his right to adequate, effective and full reparation. He denies having made a claim for any sum of money and says he referred to international case law as a source of interpretation and comparison. He claims that he is now living in severe hardship because of his forced exile and that he has still had no access to rehabilitation measures. 5.10 Lastly, the applicant insists on the relevance of the interim protection measures granted by the Committee. He notes that his refugee status in South Africa does not protect his family, who stayed behind in Burundi, and points out that the situation in the country has deteriorated significantly and is characterized by rising tensions and increasingly volatile security conditions. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 As required under article 22 (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. 6.2 The Committee observes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies. After having lodged a complaint of torture with the investigating judge on 12 June 2007 and a formal complaint of torture with the public prosecutor at Bujumbura city hall on 27 June 2007, the complainant reportedly disappeared from view, thus blocking the investigation of his case, since it was impossible for the public prosecutor at city hall to conduct effective investigations and verify the torture allegations in the absence of the purported victim. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s position that the domestic remedies the complainant claims to have used were rendered ineffective by the complainant himself, not by the authorities. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any information or evidence that might allow the Committee to confirm that an investigation had been launched, to assess the progress of the investigation and to judge its potential effectiveness, even though nine years have passed since the complainant’s lawyer filed the above-mentioned complaints. The Committee finds that, in the circumstances, the inaction of the competent authorities has made it unlikely that any remedy that might provide effective reparation could be initiated and that, in any event, the domestic proceedings have been unreasonably lengthy. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from considering the communication by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 In the absence of any obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee proceeds to its consideration of the merits of the claims submitted by the complainant under articles 1, 2 (1), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has examined the complaint in the light of all information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that, on 4 May 2007, he was arrested by officers of the National Intelligence Service without a warrant and was taken to the premises of the Service, where he was questioned in an effort to get him to testify against the former president of CNDD-FDD and to admit that he himself had attempted to GE.17-01070 7