CAT/C/71/D/858/2018 Alleged violations against A.H. 3.2 The complainant maintains that the violent truncheon blows to A.H.’s back and face, which caused heavy bleeding, the fact that he was tied up and violently interrogated and his enforced disappearance constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, as they were intentionally inflicted by public officials in order to obtain information from the victim and to punish him for his political activities. Nevertheless, should the Committee decide not to endorse such a characterization, it is maintained, in the alternative, that the abuse suffered by A.H. in any case constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to article 16 of the Convention. 3.3 The complainant further maintains that, contrary to its obligations under article 2 (1) of the Convention, the State party has not adopted all effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent acts of torture within its jurisdiction. Indeed, A.H. has not been reported or acknowledged as missing by the State party’s authorities, and no investigation has been opened. In addition, A.H. has had no contact with his family. Furthermore, the day after the events, he was seen in a car, covered in blood, injured, and wearing the same clothes, which indicates that he had not had access to medical care. More than four years after the events, even though there were witnesses at the scene, the State party has not opened an ex officio investigation. The facts surrounding A.H.’s enforced disappearance have never been clarified, and the perpetrators remain unpunished. 3.4 The complainant also alleges a violation of article 11 of the Convention in view of the fact that the State party did not respect any procedural guarantees, as A.H. was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, was not able to contact his family, was arrested without a warrant, was not provided with legal assistance and was not able to be examined by a doctor. 3.5 The complainant maintains that the State party has violated article 12 of the Convention, as it did not initiate a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the allegations that A.H. had been tortured, even though the authorities had reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture had been committed, as the complainant had referred the matter to the various police centres and to the Independent National Human Rights Commission. 3.6 With regard to article 13 of the Convention, the complainant submits that A.H. was denied the possibility of lodging a complaint by the State party and that no measures were taken to protect him, even though the authorities were aware that he was missing and that his physical and psychological integrity was at risk. 3.7 In violation of article 14, the victim has not obtained any redress or guarantee of nonrepetition and has potentially been held in a state of ongoing and recurrent suffering since December 2015. As a victim of enforced disappearance, A.H. is outside the protection of the law. By depriving A.H. of the possibility of bringing legal action under the criminal law, the State party has deprived him of all remedies for obtaining compensation for a serious crime such as torture. Given the inaction of the judicial authorities, other remedies to obtain redress, through a civil suit for damages, for example, have no realistic prospect of success. The Burundian authorities have taken few measures to compensate victims of torture, a point raised by the Committee in its concluding observations following its consideration of the State party’s initial report in 2006. 29 In 2014, while taking note of the fact that the new Burundian Code of Criminal Procedure provided for the compensation of victims of torture, the Committee expressed concern at the failure to apply this provision, in violation of article 14 of the Convention.30 Lastly, in 2016, the Committee reiterated that the State party had an obligation to guarantee adequate compensation for victims of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. 31 The Burundian authorities have thus not complied with their obligations under article 14 of the Convention, as the violations perpetrated against A.H. remain unpunished, owing to the inaction of the State party, and he has not received any compensation or rehabilitation. 29 30 31 6 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 23. CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 18. CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 27 (d). GE.21-12084