CAT/C/60/D/612/2014 4.2 On the merits, the State party maintains that it has adopted effective measures to prevent torture, as the crime of torture was established as a serious criminal offence in the new Criminal Code of 2009, with heavy, dissuasive penalties. 4.3 With regard to the measures of protection requested by the complainant to prevent potential reprisals, according to the State party they are inappropriate and pointless. The complainant has freedom of movement within the country and to date has not been troubled in any way. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 1 July 2015, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He notes, firstly, that the domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged. Furthermore, it would be dangerous for him to pursue such remedies. He recalls that the investigating magistrate heard him on 12 July 2011 (nearly 79 days after the incident); that despite the visible signs of torture on his body, no investigation was opened; and that the case file disappeared after it was transferred to the Ngozi Court of Appeal. 5.2 The complainant further specifies that he never dropped his complaint, but that, as the acts remained unpunished almost three years after they took place, he was forced to take the case to international courts. He adds that the procedures are not mutually exclusive and that despite the fact that he has submitted his complaint to the Committee, it would be desirable for the Burundian authorities to initiate proceedings and to prosecute the perpetrators. 5.3 On the merits, the complainant reiterates all the arguments put forward in his initial communication. He adds that his request for protective measures is entirely justified and that such measures are absolutely necessary, as the persons responsible for the acts of torture in question are officials of the national police, including high-ranking officers, who wield power and can easily bring pressure to bear. His fear of reprisals is thus legitimate. The independent expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi noted in his 2011 report that torture victims who tried to report acts by members of the security services were subjected to threats (see A/HRC/17/50, para. 46). Moreover, in view of the pernicious security situation in the country, civilians are unsafe, especially those in the opposition, or who are perceived as such. 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 that the State party has contested the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, inasmuch as an investigation case was opened by the prosecutor’s office following the intervention of observers from BNUB. The Committee observes that following the registration of the complaint, the complainant was questioned by the investigating magistrate on 12 July 2011, and on that occasion was able to report the torture to which he was allegedly subjected at the Muyinga police station on 23 April 2011. Since this hearing, it is undisputed that no investigation was initiated and no criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of the various complaints and reinstated claims filed by the applicant in the two years that followed. That is apparently also the case for the collective complaint filed on 14 July 2011 against the Muyinga deputy commissioner and the police chief at the Buhinzuya police station. The Committee further notes that the State party provided no additional information that might allow it to assess the progress made in the investigation of this case, while the case has apparently remained on the docket of the Ngozi Court of Appeal for more than five years (since its transfer to the Court on 26 March 2012). The Committee finds that, in the circumstances, the inaction of the competent authorities has made it unlikely that any remedy that might provide effective reparation can be initiated and that, in any event, the GE.17-09955 7