CAT/C/71/D/858/2018 to reprisals.16 Indeed, until 27 June 2016,17 Burundi had no adequate legal and institutional framework to ensure the safety of victims and witnesses. The complainant emphasizes that, in view of the continuing violations and impunity in Burundi, it is clear that the adoption of the law in question has had no tangible effect on the situation of victims or on their protection. 2.11 The complainant also refers to the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi and its assessment that the human rights situation in the country was characterized by “widespread impunity, exacerbated by the lack of independence of the judiciary”,18 which was triggered by the demonstrations of April 2015 and continued into 2016 and 2017, while the relatives of many missing persons “have been subjected to pressure, intimidation or threats by police or National Intelligence Service officers in connection with their disappearances”.19 Thus, many victims did not lodge complaints “owing to either a fear of reprisals or a lack of confidence in the functioning and independence of the judicial system”20 and, “even when the authorities announced that investigations had been opened, further action was rarely taken”.21 The complainant recalls the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, according to which States parties have “a duty to investigate thoroughly alleged violations of human rights … and to criminally prosecute, try and punish those deemed responsible for such violations”.22 2.12 The complainant claims that, despite knowledge of the abuse perpetrated against the victim, the Burundian authorities have not carried out an investigation, which fits into the general context of impunity recognized by the Committee 23 and in the reports of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi.24 Indeed, the Commission reiterated that “enforced and other disappearances continued to occur from April 2015 into 2017” 25 and noted that, “throughout 2016 and 2017, dead bodies were regularly discovered in several provinces, often with their arms tied behind their backs, and sometimes decapitated”.26 Lastly, as is stressed in the report on the independent investigation on Burundi, “the current crisis has further entrenched the existing systemic and institutional dominance of the executive branch over the judiciary”.27 Indeed, members of the executive branch “have used violent methods against its (perceived) opponents. This new situation has resulted in victims not filing complaints for violations of human rights and not using the justice system to settle differences.”28 2.13 The complainant therefore maintains that, in view of the genuine danger that prevented him from taking other steps at the national level, the State party’s reluctance to open an investigation and the seriousness of the human rights situation in Burundi, domestic remedies have proved unavailable to him. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims violations under articles 2 (1), 11, 12, 13 and 14, read in conjunction with article 1 and, in the alternative, article 16 of the Convention, in respect of A.H. and violations of articles 12, 13 and 14, read in conjunction with article 1 and, in the alternative, article 16, in respect of the successive complainants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GE.21-12084 CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 11. The author refers to Act No. 1/04 of 27 June 2016 on the protection of victims, witnesses and other persons at risk. A/HRC/36/CRP.1, para. 195. Ibid., para. 322. Ibid., para. 626. Ibid., para. 624. Vicente et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/60/D/612/1995), para. 8.8. CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 11. A/HRC/36/CRP.1, para. 635. Ibid., para. 315. Ibid., para. 278. A/HRC/33/37, para. 102. Ibid., para. 103. 5