CAT/C/59/D/549/2013 destabilize the ruling party. The Committee further noted the complainant’s claims that, after he refused to make any such admission, he was tortured for about four hours by intelligence officers and the Administrator-General of the Service; that they beat him with sticks on different parts of his body, particularly the back, face, feet and genitals, squeezed his genitals with their hands and used a piece of electrical cable to tie a five-litre container of water to them; that he succumbed to the pressure and signed a statement admitting his involvement in attempts to destabilize the ruling party; that he did not receive any medical treatment; and that the torture had caused him acute pain and suffering and had been intentionally inflicted in an effort to make him confess. The Committee takes note of the evidence provided, such as the photographs and medical certificate, which corroborate his story, as well as the findings of the human rights associations that visited him during his detention. The Committee also notes that the State party has not contested the fact that State agents were involved and has provided no relevant information or evidence to contradict the facts as presented by the complainant. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the complainant’s allegations must be taken fully into account and that the facts as presented constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 6 7.3 The complainant also invokes article 2 (1) of the Convention, which requires the State party to take “effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction”. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant was beaten and then detained for two months and 20 days in four different locations — the premises of the National Intelligence Service, the headquarters of the criminal investigation police, Gitega prison (over 100 km from his home) and Mpimba prison in Bujumbura — without any contact with a lawyer or doctor. While in police custody, he was beaten all over his body with electrical cables by the officer guarding him. The Committee recalls its conclusions and recommendations, in which it called on the State party to take effective legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent all acts of torture and all ill-treatment and to take steps, as a matter of urgency, to bring all places of detention under judicial control and to prevent its officials from making arbitrary arrests and engaging in torture. 7 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention.8 7.4 As for articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s claims that he was detained without legal grounds from 4 to 17 August 2007, when he was brought before an investigating judge and formally charged with attempted murder. Notwithstanding the fact that he had lodged a complaint on 27 June 2007 with the public prosecutor, with a copy to the Attorney General and to the public prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal in Bujumbura; that the complaint was supported by photographs and a medical certificate dated 12 June 2007 and demonstrating that he had in all probability been subjected to torture; that the events were widely known and reported by various bodies; and that his lawyer had re-lodged the complaint of torture on 15 November 2012; no investigation has been carried out, nine years after the events. The Committee considers that this delay is manifestly unreasonable. It also rejects the State party’s argument that the lack of progress in the investigation can be put down to a lack of cooperation on the part of the complainant, who was not in the country. The Committee draws attention to the State party’s obligation under article 12 of the Convention to ensure that its competent authorities proceed ex officio to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable 6 7 8 8 See, for example, communication No. 514/2012, Niyonzima v. Burundi, decision adopted on 21 November 2014. See CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 10. See communications No. 503/2012, Ntikarahera v. Burundi, decision adopted on 12 May 2014, para. 6.3; and Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.2. GE.17-01070