CAT/C/60/D/579/2013 objective — an element of the crime of torture — in this case was discrimination based on sex or gender. The complainant also points out that Captain D.K. was acting in the framework of his duties, carrying out night patrols. He was thus acting as a public official. 3.5 The complainant adds that the State party has not taken the necessary measures, legislative or otherwise, to prevent the practice of torture in Burundi, contrary to its obligations under article 2 (1) of the Convention. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant and the victim, the military prosecutor initiated an investigation on 12 July 2012. The parties were heard and a court-ordered medical expert examination concluded that the victim had suffered a sexual assault. The judge also visited the site of the rape with the victim and heard the victim’s testimony there, thereafter concluding that her account was coherent. Yet after several months of inaction, on 25 February 2013 the military prosecutor dropped the case for lack of elements of an offence, despite solid evidence of guilt. The military investigation did not meet the requirement for a prompt, diligent and impartial investigation. The complainant’s attempt to revive the proceedings by issuing the direct summons to appear produced no result. The presumed perpetrator has thus faced no prosecution, while the victim has been left with no means to defend her rights. Consequently, the State party has failed to comply with article 2 (1) of the Convention. 3.6 The complainant further submits that the investigation did not meet the requirements of article 12 of the Convention, as it was clearly ineffective and biased. The grounds for dropping the case were unfounded, as the military prosecutor’s department did not take into account the impact on a 9-year-old child of death threats coming from a serviceman with immense power over her, while it gave disproportionate importance to the captain’s “calm”. Furthermore, the public prosecution service did not show due diligence, as during the investigation it failed to proceed with an effective and impartial search for additional evidence, despite the gravity of the offence and the young age of the victim. According to the complainant, the authorities’ failure to take action against the serviceman, who to this day has not been troubled by the justice system, reflects a will to protect him to the detriment of an effective investigation. Consequently, the State party has failed to meet its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. 3.7 For the same reasons, the complainant also invokes article 13 of the Convention, arguing that no investigation has been initiated and that the presumed perpetrator has not been troubled by the justice system and has remained in service, as a result of which the victim’s right to submit a complaint, guaranteed under that article, has been violated as well. 3.8 According to the complainant, by depriving the victim of a criminal trial, the State also deprived her of the legal means to obtain compensation for the material and moral harm caused by a crime as serious as rape. In addition, the only rehabilitation services received by the victim have been provided to her by the Centre Seruka, a private association. The State authorities provided no rehabilitation services at all. The young girl is facing enormous difficulties fitting in at school and in socializing with other children. She no longer plays. It is as if she has been plunged into a permanent state of shock and dejection. The State party has thus also committed a violation of article 14 of the Convention, as the young victim’s legal representatives have received no compensation and the victim has not benefited from any rehabilitation or recovery services. 3.9 The complainant maintains that the rape of the child C.N. was an act of torture as qualified by article 1 of the Convention. However, and as an alternative argument, even if the Committee does not agree to qualify it as torture, the abuse endured by the victim in any case constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and on that basis, the State party had the obligation, under article 16 of the Convention, to prevent and repress the commission, instigation or tolerance of such acts by State officials. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 28 May 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It emphasized that rape is mentioned in Act No. 1/05 of 22 April 2009 revising the Burundian Criminal Code (art. 557 (2) and (5)). The State party also gave another account of the facts of the case, emphasizing that upon their arrival at the GE.17-09954 5