CAT/C/55/D/522/2012 the torture that had been reported on numerous occasions by the complainant. In this respect, the complainant maintains that no investigation has been undertaken into the incidents, which occurred three and a half years ago. 5.3 To wait any longer to provide the complainant with redress would constitute a flagrant violation of his right to an effective remedy, especially as h e is exposed to the risk of reprisals and fears for his personal safety. The complainant was informed of the existence of a plan for his imminent execution. Despite this intimidation, the complainant nevertheless had the courage to formally lodge a complai nt on 9 February 2012 and to lodge it again on 5 June 2012. Since June 2012, the threats have intensified to the point that he lives in permanent hiding and in constant fear of being rearrested and executed. The persons responsible for the acts of torture in question are senior officials in the National Intelligence Service and the Burundian National Police and persons affiliated with the current Government who wield power and strong pressure to prevent any proceedings being initiated against them in the na tional courts. The risks to the complainant’s life and physical and mental integrity are considered to be real and immediate. 5.4 The complainant observes that, pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor’s office should have opened an investigation and initiated proceedings. 12 Moreover, the judges of the various courts called upon to examine the complainant ’s allegations of torture should have requested the opinion of a medical expert. 13 Also pursuant to the Code, the Minister of Justice was empowered to order the Attorney General or the public prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the case. 5.5 With reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 14 the complainant recalls that, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that such acts have been committed, the State must automatically initiate an investigation, regardless of the source of the allegations. It is not necessary, for the purposes of article 12 of the Convention, for a formal complaint, or for an express statement of intent to institute and sustain a criminal action, to have been lodged. 15 The complainant concludes that he attempted to invoke the available domestic remedies but that they proved ineffective. 5.6 With reference once more to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 16 the complainant adds that the remedies have been unduly prolonged. Even if an investigation into the matter had been instituted, it would not have met the requirements for promptness or effectiveness. In any event, the more than three and a half years 17 that have elapsed since the reported incidents occurred, without any punishment having been imposed on those responsible, clearly constitutes an unreasonable delay. 5.7 As for the State party’s arguments that his communication should be deemed inadmissible, the complainant notes that the right to submit a communication to the Committee is granted to all individuals whose rights under the Convention have been __________________ 12 13 14 15 16 17 GE.15-16176 New Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 52. New Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 346. See, in particular, Sahli v. Algeria, para. 9.6; Thabti v. Tunisia, para. 10.4; M’Barek v. Tunisia, para. 11.7; Blanco Abad v. Spain, para. 8.6. See communication No. 6/1990, Parot v. Spain, decision adopted on 2 May 1995, para. 10.4. See also Blanco Abad v. Spain, para. 8.6. The complainant recalls that, in the case of Sonko v. Spain, communication No. 368/2008, decision adopted on 25 November 2011, the Committee was of the view that an investigation that had been under way for just over 19 months and that could not be considered prompt or impartial one was inconsistent with the State party’s obligations in that area, in particular, those set forth in article 12 of the Convention. He also recalls that, in the case of Blanco Abad v. Spain, the Committee concluded that a period of 10 months to carry out investigative procedures show s the investigative measures not to have satisfied the requirement for promptness in examining complaints, Blanco Abad v. Spain, para. 8.7. Now five years. 11/15