CAT/C/60/D/579/2013 conditions of service for officers of the National Defence Forces of Burundi. 11 The complainant adds that that body had, however, been found to be competent by the investigating magistrate in a similar case involving the rape of a minor, initiated against the same alleged perpetrator.12 Clearly, then, there is an inconsistency in the treatment of the two cases. Furthermore, in the light of the case’s other previously cited irregularities, the complainant concludes that the decision of the courts martial that they were not competent to hear the complaint was a delaying tactic intended to protect the presumed perpetrator from criminal prosecution. 5.3 On the merits of the case, the complainant points out that the State party has not contested the facts. It has not denied that a sexual assault took place, merely contending that no link could be established with the presumed perpetrator, while implicitly admitting that the captain could be the one who carried out the sexual assault. 5.4 The complainant argues that the State party cannot blame the lack of DNA tests on her and seek to exonerate itself by placing the burden for the lack of means and investigation techniques on the victim, expecting the victim to provide further evidence using a method that the State itself has failed to make available. Furthermore, with regard to the State party’s argument that the complainant failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not reporting to the next level in the hierarchy that the dismissal of the case was inappropriate, the complainant notes that it is unreasonable to require the presentation of further incriminating evidence that the State itself is unable to provide, for lack of available DNA testing. In addition, this position ignores the fact that the victim and her family, rendered destitute as a result of the rape, have been left vulnerable before a senior officer, who, for his part, has been given protection. 5.5 The complainant adds that in this case, the medical expert opinion did indeed conclude that a sexual assault had taken place, a fact that the State party has not denied. In addition, the psychosocial services confirmed that the child’s description of the incident corresponded with her psychological state, as assessed by professionals. Furthermore, convictions for rape (albeit not when they are committed by high-level State officials) have already been handed down on the basis of medical experts’ forensic reports, without resorting to DNA testing. The absence of DNA testing in this case is thus not an insurmountable obstacle, and the State party provides no satisfactory explanation for its failure to take action in response to a medical report of particular gravity about a minor, who should benefit from special protection. The State authorities had the responsibility to launch an effective, prompt and impartial investigation, ordering a thorough expert’s report and questioning witnesses to ascertain who was responsible. 5.6 The complainant also notes that in practice there has been a lack of convictions of perpetrators of violence against women and of sexual assault when they are State officials. No prosecutions are initiated when senior officers are involved. Furthermore, the State party presents the work done by civil society associations as one of its own achievements, but such associations specifically address the shortcomings of the State in responding to such violations. The same applies to the obligation of the State party to provide the necessary measures for compensation and rehabilitation of the victim, which has so far been ensured by a private association. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee notes the allegation of the complainant, according to which the State party has not taken the necessary measures, legislative or otherwise, to prevent the practice of torture, contrary to its obligations under article 2 (1) of the Convention. The Committee 11 12 8 Article 65 (2) provides that “ordinary offences committed by officers shall be tried in ordinary courts”. Case RMP 144770. GE.17-09954