CAT/C/60/D/579/2013 D.K. and the sexual assault perpetrated against the child. The State party notes that the medical expert did not take samples — notwithstanding the fact that they were essential — from the serviceman suspected of carrying out the assault, nor were any biological samples taken from the child in order to perform a comparative analysis of the genetic profiles. The investigator from the military prosecutor’s department was therefore unable to prove that the child’s injuries sustained during the sexual assault were attributable to Captain D.K. Because of the failure to identify the actual perpetrator of the sexual assault, the investigator proposed that the case should be dropped, and it was, in application of article 41 (1) of Act No. 1/15, of 20 July 1999, on reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the serviceman benefited from the existence of doubt. 4.12 The State party adds that, according to Burundian criminal procedure, children and the principle of the best interest of the child are afforded privileged protection. 10 However, other basic principles are involved in criminal proceedings. Namely, the investigator must respect the presumption of innocence. It cannot be totally excluded that the perpetrator of the sexual assault against the child was a person other than Captain D.K. The fact that the investigation was discontinued does not mean the judicial authorities can be accused of being remiss. There is currently no genetic identification (DNA testing) in Burundi; it is not used to deal with criminal cases. 4.13 The State party adds that the complainant filed the application with the Committee before the exhaustion of domestic remedies in Burundi. She could have reported the inadequacy of dropping the case to the next level in the hierarchy (the State Prosecutor) and requested that the case be reopened, providing new evidence. Under article 41 (a) of the 1999 Act, discontinuation of a case is an administrative measure which does not bar resumption of the investigation or prosecution of the same case. It is a temporary measure, not a definitive one. 4.14 At this stage, the child cannot obtain a judicial remedy, for the simple reason that the judge is no longer seized of the case. Until the case is reopened, the child must still receive the psychosocial assistance and medical care required because of her trauma. The State party adds that it makes use of the means at its disposal to strengthen social institutions, encouraging activities by private associations that provide care for victims. In the present case, the psychosocial unit of the Centre Seruka reported that the complainant did not return to the Centre and that she did not continue to make use of the psychological services provided to her daughter, which were nonetheless essential for her. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits 5.1 On 16 December 2014, the complainant submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. She noted first of all that while Burundi had indeed adopted a new Criminal Code in 2009 establishing that torture was a criminal offence and a new Code of Criminal Procedure in 2013, there were still several legal obstacles to the effective prevention of the practice of torture. Moreover, the adoption of legislation provided no guarantee of satisfactory implementation and was insufficient to prevent the commission of acts of torture. Article 558 of the Criminal Code inter alia provides that “rape shall be punishable by life imprisonment when it is committed against a child under the age of 12”. Notwithstanding the existence of a suitable legal framework, the State party’s actual response to the problem of sexual violence is thus still inadequate. 5.2 The complainant refers to her initial argument and repeats that the domestic remedies have proven to be of no avail and ineffective, unreasonably prolonged, and dangerous for her child and herself. She adds that with the assistance of the Centre Seruka, she tried to reinitiate the proceedings in the domestic courts after the case had been dropped by the military prosecutor’s department, by issuing a direct summons, filed with the courts martial on 22 October 2013. On 26 June 2014, though, the courts martial stated that the complaint did not fall within their competence, basing the decision on article 65 of Act No. 1/21 of 31 December 2010 amending Act No. 1/15 of 29 April 2006, establishing the 10 GE.17-09954 The State party refers to articles 554 ff. of the Criminal Code of 2009. 7