CAT/C/60/D/612/2014 3.11 According to the complainant, by depriving him of a criminal trial, the State party has also deprived him of a legal channel to obtain compensation for the material and moral harm caused by a crime as serious as torture. The complainant has received no compensation, nor has he benefited from any rehabilitation measures. Given the passivity of the judicial authorities, other remedies, such as those to obtain redress through a civil suit for damages, have no realistic prospect of success.3 He therefore cites a violation of article 14 of the Convention. 3.12 The complainant adds that the State party has also committed a violation of article 15 of the Convention. There is no doubt that A.N. was a victim of torture and that the torture was intended to obtain a confession; this is proven by the fact that the torture stopped when the victim, under duress, placed his mark on a record submitted by the police officers. It is precisely on the basis of those confessions that he was prosecuted for participation in armed gangs and threatening State security. The conditions in which the statement signed by the complainant was drawn up have never been verified and the confession was not rendered void. On the contrary, it was used in the court of first instance to convict A.N. 3.13 Lastly, while reiterating that the treatment to which he was subjected constitutes torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, the complainant contends, alternatively, that the abuse constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and that the State party is thus also under an obligation to prevent and punish the commission, instigation or tolerance of such acts by State officials and to provide compensation for the damage caused. 3.14 The complainant adds that the deplorable conditions of detention to which he was subjected for nearly 17 months at the Muyinga prison, which constantly had extreme overcrowding and unsanitary conditions endangering the health of its inmates, also constitute a violation of his rights under article 16.4 The state of health of the complainant was already alarming when he arrived at the Muyinga prison, and he did not receive the care required by his condition, despite his clear requests. He still suffers from physical after-effects. The complainant concludes that the State party has violated his rights under article 16 of the Convention. 3.15 In conclusion, the complainant asks the Committee to find violations of the provisions cited above and to order Burundi specifically to: (a) conduct a prompt, thorough and effective investigation into the torture inflicted on him so as to criminally prosecute and punish the perpetrators; (b) provide appropriate reparation, including measures of compensation for the material and psychological injury caused, and restitution, rehabilitation, measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition; (c) ensure that confessions obtained under torture are rendered void; (d) amend its legislation to ensure that there is no statute of limitations for the prosecution of acts of torture; and (e) ensure that measures are taken so that the violations that it finds are not repeated. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 27 March 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It challenged the admissibility of the communication, invoking non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. According to the State party, the complainant dropped his complaint that was under way in the Burundian courts in order to bring it before the Committee. The complainant’s allegations are also biased and are not supported by any evidence. His claim for compensation is thus unfounded, as the prejudice has not yet been established, and it will be for the courts of the State party to issue a decision on his claim on the merits, as well as on any possible damages to be paid. 3 4 6 The Committee has expressed concern about the absence of any measures to compensate victims of torture in judicial practice in Burundi (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 23). The complainant states that, in June 2011, over 600 persons were held at the facility, for a maximum capacity of 300. GE.17-09955