CAT/C/60/D/579/2013 2.9 As the complainant found out that her daughter had been raped, the following day, on 11 July 2012, she took her to the Centre Seruka, which provides victims of sexual violence with medical, psychosocial and legal assistance. The victim thus received comprehensive care there. 2.10 On 12 July 2012, the complainant appeared with her daughter before the deputy prosecutor of the military prosecutor’s department in Bujumbura to report the rape of her child, C.N. The case was opened and a case number was assigned. Although she was frightened, the young victim described the circumstances of the rape in detail. The complainant too was heard by the deputy, and a record serving as a complaint registration was issued on the basis of the hearings. The investigation continued with an interview of Captain D.K. On 13 July 2012, the witnesses were summoned: the serviceman’s wife and the signals officer, present at the scene of the crime. On 13 July 2012 the deputy also ordered an expert opinion from the doctor at the Centre Seruka. 2.11 According to the medical report, the gynaecological examination revealed a “tear in the hymen at the six o’clock position, healing, and bright red discoloration around the urinary meatus and the insides of the labia majora and the labia minora”. The report concluded that there were “signs of trauma of the external genitalia”.2 2.12 The complainant adds that the child’s psychological state is extremely distressing. At the first psychological assistance session, on 13 August 2012, a month and a half after the rape, the complainant pointed out that her daughter had become alienated, had cut herself off from contact with other children and showed signs of anxiety. The psychologists observed that the young victim had “persistent flashbacks reflected in repetitive accounts of the incident, along with avoidance behaviour”.3 2.13 The complainant furthermore points out that she is now in extremely dire financial straits and lacks social support. Having been left by her husband because she refused the out-of-court settlement, she is trying to meet her family’s needs on her own. 2.14 The complainant later followed up on the case regularly with the investigating magistrate, personally visiting the military prosecutor’s department to ask how the investigation was progressing. Specifically, she spoke with him on 24 July and 1 August 2012. On both occasions, he informed her that the investigation was under way. On 7 August 2012, the Centre Seruka’s legal assistant went to the military prosecutor’s department to enquire about the investigation. She learned at that time that the chief investigating magistrate had been transferred to the courts martial. The new judge who took over the case stated in an interview that despite the spontaneous testimony given by the victim, elements of an offence were missing. The employee of the Centre Seruka then offered the testimony of another child, who had also alleged being raped by Captain D.K., but whose complaint had not been upheld. The father of the other victim was interviewed by the deputy, who also visited the scene of the rape with the victim. 2.15 The complainant and the staff of the Centre Seruka followed up on the case, but to no avail, as it appeared that the investigating magistrate was no longer working on it. 2.16 On 25 February 2013, eight months after the rape, the case was finally dismissed, owing to the absence of elements of an offence. 4 The complainant points out that the judges nonetheless recognized that the captain had taken the child C.N. to his home late at night and that they mentioned the medical report, which clearly concluded that a sexual assault had taken place. The sole basis cited for dismissing the case was the “relatively long period of 10 days before the victim reported the incident” and the captain’s “calm” and “availability” to the investigators.5 2 3 4 5 GE.17-09954 The report is in the case file. Ibid. The decision in the case file. The last paragraph of the decision to dismiss the case reads: “(…) despite the evidence submitted by the alleged victim, the testimony gathered from the serviceman guarding the vehicle of the alleged rapist, the relatively long period of 10 days that passed before the victim reported the act, the calm displayed by Captain D.K. and his availability whenever it was solicited during the investigation cast 3