CAT/C/55/D/522/2012 3.3 With further reference to article 1 of the Convention, the complainant points out that he was deprived of the right to see a doctor and to be vi sited by his family during his detention. Between 1 and 6 July 2010, he was thus held incommunicado and had no contact whatsoever with the outside world. He was kept in an unsanitary lavatory without any care, food or water, 4 was given death threats and was subjected to mock executions. The complainant recalls that the Committee has already qualified as methods of torture the fact of leading a person to the bank of a river and threatening to drown him or her for refusal to confess to an offence, and of poin ting a gun to his or her head (see CAT/C/75, para. 143). In addition, the complainant was exposed to a host of humiliating and degrading treatments and practices. There is no doubt that these acts were perpetrated intentionally by agents of the State party, as evidenced by the presence of senior officials of the National Intelligence Service and the Burundian National Police during the ill-treatment, and the fact that it was they who ordered the acts to be carried out. The purpose of those acts was to obtai n information concerning the political opposition of the Union pour la paix et le développement and the National Liberation Forces. 3.4 The complainant also invokes article 2, paragraph 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. However, in the present case, the complainant was deprived of contact with his family and with a lawyer throughout the entire period of his detention at the premises of the National Intelligence Service, which lasted 5 days. His detention took place outside the protection of the law — a context that is particularly conducive to the practice of torture. Moreover, during the first 12 days of his detention, he received no care, even though he had requested it and his condition had deteriorated and clearly required immediate medical attention. It was not until 12 July 2010 that ICRC representatives examined him; nevertheless, the requested X-ray was not performed. 3.5 Although there is no statute of limitations under Burundian law for the prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, when the offence of torture is committed outside these specific contexts, it is sub ject to a statutory limitation ranging from 20 to 30 years, depending on the circumstances. 5 The complainant adds that his is not an isolated case and that serious human rights violations by police officers go largely unpunished in Burundi. According to th e complainant, since the State party has not adopted the legislative or other measures needed to prevent torture, it has failed to meet its obligations under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 3.6 The complainant also invokes article 11 of the Convention and notes that the State party failed to meet its obligations in relation to the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment. His detention was unlawful: he was not informed of the charges against him; he did not have access to legal counsel during his detention at the National Intelligence Service premises; and he was not brought before a judge at any time during his detention. As it was materially impossible for him to assert his rights through legal channels, he was unable to challenge his detention or lodge a formal complaint concerning the torture to which he had been subjected. Furthermore, he was not examined by a doctor, despite the critical nature of his condition, nor was he given access to a l awyer. In addition, he was detained in appalling conditions. For these reasons, the complainant concludes __________________ 4 5 GE.15-16176 decision adopted on 24 November 2004, para. 5.3. The complainant refers to the Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro decision, para. 5.3. Article 146 of the Criminal Code. 7/15