CAT/C/60/D/612/2014 were not respected in this case. No warrant was presented for the search of the victim’s domicile and for the search and seizure of equipment during his arrest on 23 April 2011, and he was not informed of the charges levelled against him. Furthermore, the time limit of seven days for detainees to be presented before a judge, established under article 60 of the previous Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable at the time of the events, was not respected: A.N. was arrested on 23 April 2011, but was presented to the pretrial court chamber on 3 May 2011, 10 days later. No other pretrial court procedures were subsequently organized. A review of the legality of detention should have taken place every three days according to article 75 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the time. The complainant also notes that he was eventually acquitted by the Ngozi Court of Appeal after approximately 17 months of deprivation of liberty. It may thus legitimately be considered that the proceedings against him were unfounded. 3.5 The complainant adds that, upon his arrival in prison and during his time as an inmate, he did not receive the care required for his condition. It is thus clear that he was deprived of his right to receive adequate and prompt medical assistance from an independent doctor, in violation of article 2 (1) of the Convention. 3.6 According to the complainant, the State party also failed in its obligation to investigate the torture inflicted upon him so as to bring those responsible to justice. Furthermore, despite the reform of the Criminal Code in 2009, there are still legal obstacles blocking the effective prevention of torture. Aside from when it is committed in the specific contexts of genocide or crimes against humanity, torture as a criminal act is time-bound for 20 or 30 years, depending on the circumstances. Consequently, the complainant maintains that the State party has not adopted the legislative or other measures necessary under article 2 (1) of the Convention. 3.7 Clearly, given the critical condition of the complainant following the interrogation to which he was subjected on 23 April 2011, the Burundian authorities failed to duly monitor his treatment at the provincial police station in Muyinga. Several procedural irregularities have been identified, particularly in relation to his arrest and detention: the police searched his home and confiscated equipment, then arrested and incarcerated him, without presenting any warrants. The complainant was not informed of the charges against him. The legality of his detention was not verified in accordance with the legal requirements; the pretrial court chamber only took action 10 days after his arrest, and no other hearing was convened. Lastly, the complainant was held in deplorable conditions of detention (para. 2.11, above). Consequently, violations of articles 11 and 16 were committed. 3.8 In respect of article 12, the complainant submits that, although the torture to which he was subjected was reported during the first hearing before the judge, on 3 May 2011, at which time he complained of the treatment inflicted on him in the office of the deputy commissioner, and despite the visible marks of abuse on his body, the authorities did not initiate any investigation. It was not until nine weeks later that a judicial investigation case was finally registered, despite the fact that there were reasonable grounds to believe, on the basis of information from several sources, that an act of torture had been committed. The investigation cannot be considered to be prompt and impartial, as more than 2 years and 10 months elapsed since the first report of the incident without any effective investigation being conducted and without any charges being filed against the alleged perpetrators. Apart from the hearing of the victim on 12 July 2011, no other investigative procedures were carried out. The persons named in the complaint of 14 July 2011 were never interviewed and no expert medical report was requested. The lack of due diligence in the handling of the case was further highlighted by the “loss” of the case file when it was transferred to the Ngozi Court of Appeal. The complainant attempted to reinstate the complaint on 2 September 2013, also to no avail. 3.9 The complainant also points out that under Burundian criminal law prosecutors are not explicitly obliged to automatically prosecute perpetrators of torture or even to order investigations (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 22). He invites the Committee to conclude that a violation of article 12 has occurred. 3.10 The complainant also invokes article 13, reiterating that, as described above, his case was not examined promptly and impartially. GE.17-09955 5