CAT/C/60/D/612/2014 domestic proceedings have been unreasonably lengthy. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from considering the communication by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 In the absence of any other obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee proceeds to its consideration of the merits of the claims submitted by the complainant under articles 1, 2 (1), 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has examined the complaint in the light of all information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, on 23 April 2011 he was arrested at his home by police officers, taken to the Muyinga police station, where he was accused of participation in a planned rebellion against the regime, questioned and then brutally beaten by the Muyinga deputy commissioner, who allegedly also threatened to kill him in a mock execution. Despite the fact that he had serious injuries and a broken arm, he was reportedly transferred on the same day to the Muyinga prison. Despite his requests for medical care, he received none. 7.3 In respect of article 1 of the Convention, the complainant added that the conditions of detention at the Muyinga prison, where he was deprived of care, subjected to prison overcrowding and forced to sleep on the floor, also were forms of treatment constituting torture. 7.4 The Committee notes that the State party has not replied to the author’s claims. In these circumstances, and on the basis of the information made available to it, the Committee concludes that the complainant’s claims must be taken fully into account; that the abuse inflicted upon him was committed by officials of the State party acting in their official capacity; and that those acts constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 7.5 Having found a violation of article 1 of the Convention, the Committee will not consider the grievances raised by the complainant, on a subsidiary basis, under article 16 of the Convention. 7.6 The complainant also invokes article 2 (1) of the Convention, under which the State party should have taken effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. The Committee observes, in the present case, that the complainant was arrested without being presented with a warrant; that the legality of his detention was not reviewed within the established legal time frame (see para. 3.4, above); and that he was denied medical care, which was nonetheless required owing to his condition. He was subjected to serious abuse at the Muyinga police station, which he reported on several occasions, and the acts in question have gone unpunished. Accordingly, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1) read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention.5 7.7 The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 has been violated, inasmuch as the State party failed to properly monitor the treatment he received during his detention. Specifically, he stated that his arrest and detention did not take place with the procedural safeguards and monitoring that was required; that he was denied medical care, despite the fact that his condition was critical; and that he was detained in deplorable conditions. The Committee once again recalls its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Burundi, in which it expressed concern about: the excessive length of police custody; the numerous cases in which the allowable period of police custody was exceeded; failure to keep registers, or to keep complete registers, of persons in custody; failure to comply with fundamental legal safeguards for persons deprived of their liberty; the absence of provisions that guarantee access to a doctor and access to legal 5 8 See, inter alia, communication No. 514/2012, Niyonzima v. Burundi, decision adopted on 21 November 2014, para. 8.3; and communication No. 522/2012, Gahungu v. Burundi, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.6. GE.17-09955