CAT/C/61/D/654/2015 Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication, taking due account of all the information provided to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee notes that the complainant alleges that the State party has violated articles 1, 2 (1), 4, and 11 to 16 of the Convention. 7.3 With regard to the complaint relating to article 1, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that he was subjected to acts of torture by officials of the State party, and that the latter failed to take all effective measures to prevent him from being subjected to such acts. The Committee notes, to begin with, that the complainant was arrested during the night of 29 and 30 July 1993 and taken to the Ministry of the Interior, where he was interrogated and arbitrarily detained for 20 days (see paras. 2.2 ff.). The Committee notes that the complainant provided a detailed account of the appalling torture that he suffered at the Ministry of the Interior, where the victim was subject to the control of national security officers, whom he identified and named. The Committee further notes that the complainant was repeatedly tortured, held in solitary confinement and deprived of medical care at 9 April Prison for lengthy periods despite an obvious need for care (paras. 2.11 ff.). 7.4 The Committee also notes that the complainant claims that he still suffers many physical and psychological after-effects of torture, and that he has submitted reports of relevant medical examinations (see para. 2.18). The Committee observes that the State party has not refuted any of these allegations. Under the circumstances, and on the basis of the information made available to it, the Committee concludes that the complainant’s allegations must be taken fully into account; that the abuse to which he was subjected was perpetrated by officials of the State party in an official capacity; and that the acts in question constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 7.5 Having found a violation of article 1 of the Convention, the Committee will not address the complaints filed by the complainant, on a subsidiary basis, under article 16 of the Convention. 7.6 The complainant also invokes article 2 (1) of the Convention, pursuant to which the State party should have taken effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. The Committee observes in this connection that the complainant was arrested without being presented with a warrant; that he was held in incommunicado detention at the Ministry of the Interior from 30 July to 4 September 1993, i.e. for 37 days, a period that greatly exceeds the maximum of four days authorized by law (see para. 2.7 above); that a review of the lawfulness of his detention was not conducted within the statutory time limit; and that during his pretrial detention he was denied contact with his family and the medical care required for his condition. Although he is a victim of acts of torture of extreme violence, which he repeatedly reported, the acts in question remain unpunished. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention.18 7.7 With regard to the alleged violation of article 4 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that one of the purposes of the Convention is to avoid allowing persons who have committed acts of torture to escape unpunished. 19 It also recalls that article 4 requires States parties to ensure that acts of torture are offences under its criminal law and to make such offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. The Committee notes that the present case has not yet been examined, more than 21 years after the events, with a view to prosecuting and punishing the alleged perpetrators of the torture inflicted on the complainant. The Committee also notes that, owing to the principle of non-retroactivity enshrined in article 101 bis, which criminalizes torture, the accused 18 19 GE.17-16785 See, inter alia, communications, Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.3; and No. 522/2012, Gahungu v. Burundi, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.6. Communication No. 212/2002, Urra Guridi v. Spain, decision adopted on 17 May 2015, para. 6.7. 13