CAT/C/60/D/579/2013 takes note of the legislative measures undertaken by the State party, particularly the adoption of Act No. 1/05 revising the Burundian Criminal Code; article 10 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2013, which instructs the judicial police ex officio to take up cases and to immediately inform the prosecutor; and article 558 of the Criminal Code, which provides for a penalty of life imprisonment when a rape is committed against a child under the age of 12. The Committee concludes that the complainant has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, the claim presented under article 2 (1) of the Convention, and therefore finds it inadmissible. 6.3 Secondly, the Committee observes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies, since the complainant, by producing further evidence, could have reported the decision of the military prosecutor’s department of 25 February 2013 to the State Prosecutor. The Committee notes that, according to the admission of the State party itself, investigation techniques employing DNA testing are not used in criminal cases in Burundi. Yet the State party has maintained that such techniques were supposedly required in order to identify the perpetrator and the victim for the purposes of the investigation. It thus cannot be held against the complainant that she did not avail herself of a remedy that could only have been available with the presentation of new evidence. The Committee notes that, in any case, it was incumbent on the State party to continue to seek the truth and to ensure that an effective investigation would identify and punish the person responsible for the crime. The Committee concludes that in such circumstances, domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the complaint is admissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.4 In the absence of any additional obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee proceeds to its consideration of the merits of the claims submitted by the complainant under articles 1, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has examined the complaint in the light of all information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that on 30 June 2012, during a patrol, Captain D.K., a member of the Armed Forces of Burundi, went to her home and that he reportedly took her daughter, C.N., who was 9 years old at the time, to his home, and that he allegedly sexually assaulted her. The Committee notes that the State party has provided a different version of the events. According to it, Captain D.K. proposed that the child C.N. accompany him home, and she accepted. Once they arrived at the serviceman’s home, the child went directly to the children’s room, where she spent the night. 7.3 The Committee emphasizes that, despite this discrepancy between the factual accounts, there is no dispute as to whether the child C.N. spent the night at Captain D.K.’s home and that she was subjected to sexual assault, a fact that was formally certified by a medical examination following the request for an expert opinion formulated by the authorities of the State party as part of the judicial investigation opened in this case. The Committee further notes that the State party has not commented on the applicant’s allegation that Captain D.K. reportedly first threatened to kill the child with his firearm if she did not stop crying and wailing and subsequently gave the child money to ensure her silence, and that he later proposed an out-of-court settlement to the family of the victim, which, in the Committee’s view, should be considered as a confession. Accordingly, the Committee gives due weight to the complainant’s allegations, insofar as they have been sufficiently substantiated and the State party has not provided satisfactory answers to them. 7.4 The Committee notes that on 30 June 2012, the daughter of the complainant, a minor, was under the physical control of an officer of the Burundian national army. It is not disputed that the acts in question, deliberately inflicted and consisting of vaginal penetration of a 9-year-old child, surely constitute infliction of severe pain and suffering, perpetrated for impermissible purposes. The pain and suffering were compounded by intimidation of the victim, who was threatened with a firearm. Furthermore, the family was subjected to pressure to keep the victim quiet about the rape. Accordingly, the Committee GE.17-09954 9