CAT/C/55/D/522/2012 unable to challenge his detention or lodge a formal complaint concerning the torture to which he had been subjected. The complainant has further recal led that he was not examined by a doctor and that he did not have access to legal counsel. Furthermore, the conditions of his detention at the premises of the National Intelligence Service were appalling. The Committee further reiterates its concluding obs ervations on Burundi, in which it expressed concern at the excessive length of time during which people can be held in police custody; numerous instances in which the allowable duration of police custody has been exceeded; failures to keep registers on per sons in custody or failures to ensure that such records are complete; failures 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 assistance for persons of limited means; and the excessive use of pretrial detention in the absence of regular reviews of its legality and of any limit on its total duration (CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10). In the present case, the complainant appears to have been held outsi de the judicial system before being brought before a judge 5 days after his arrest; during his detention at the premises of the National Intelligence Service, he was denied medical assistance despite his worrying condition. Furthermore, he had no access to a lawyer or to his family. In the absence of any compelling evidence from the State party indicating that the complainant’s detention was indeed subject to its supervision, the Committee finds a violation of article 11 of the Convention by the State party. 7.8 With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s claims that no investigation has been opened to ascertain the facts of the case despite the many steps taken to report the torture inflicted on him and the formal complaint lodged with the public prosecutor on 9 February 2012, supported by photographs showing the marks of torture on his body. The complainant lodged the complaint again on 5 June 2012 but has received no response. The State party conte sts the referral of the case to the Committee by the complainant on the grounds that the latter has filed a complaint with the authorities, but it has provided no evidence which might help the Committee to ascertain what progress has been made, to judge ho w effective the procedure might be or to explain the reasons for such a delay. The Committee considers that so long a delay in initiating an investigation into allegations of torture is patently unjustified and clearly breaches the State party ’s obligations under article 12 of the Convention, which requires it to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. By failing to meet this obligation, the State party has als o failed to fulfil its responsibility under article 13 of the Convention to guarantee the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint, which presupposes that the authorities provide a satisfactory response to such a complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 19 7.9. With regard to article 14 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s allegations that he has not benefited from any form of rehabilitation designed to ensure that he recovers as fully as possible in ph ysical, mental, social and financial terms. The Committee recalls that article 14 not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate compensation but also requires States parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress. The Committee refers to its general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, in which it establishes that States parties should ensure that victims of torture or ill -treatment obtain full and effective redress and reparation, including compensation and the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. Redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim and encompass, among other measures, restitution, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of __________________ 19 14/15 Communications Nos. 376/2009, Bendib v. Algeria, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 6.6 and 503/2012, Ntikarahera v. Burundi, decision adopted on 12 May 2014, para. 6.4. GE.15-16176