CAT/C/55/D/522/2012 that the State party failed in its duty to properly monitor the treatment he received during his detention at the premises of the National Intelligenc e Service. 6 3.7 The complainant also maintains that the State party has violated article 12 of the Convention in the present case. Under that article, the competent authorities are required to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 7 He recalls that it is not necessary, for the purposes of article 12, for a formal complaint to have been lodged. He notes that, in the case in question, the judicial authorities were amply informed of the torture he endured (see paras. 2.18-2.20 above). However, no effective, in-depth and impartial investigation was ever conducted. No investigative procedures were carried out, not even to bring the complainant or the alleged perpetrators in for questioning, despite the fact that the latter had been identified. The complainant therefore concludes that, since a genuine, prompt and impartial investigation into the allegations of torture to which he was subjected was not carried out, the State party acted in violation of its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. 3.8 With regard to article 13 of the Convention, the complainant maintains that the State party had the obligation to guarantee his right to bring a claim before the competent national authorities in order to have his case promptly and impartially examined. In fact, however, despite the formal complaints that he filed (mentioned above), no action was taken in response to his complaints. Worse still, the complainant received death threats and was under constant surveillance by agents identified as belonging to the National Intelligence Service. 8 He recalls that the Committee had noted with concern the reprisals, serious acts of intimidation and threats against human rights defenders, and had stressed the need for Burundi to take effective steps to ensure that all persons reporting torture or ill-treatment are protected from intimidation and from any unfavourable consequences that they might suffer as a result of making such a report (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 25). 3.9 The complainant also invokes article 14 of the Convention. He states that, by depriving him of due process, the State party has also deprived him of the enforceable right to compensation for torture. Furthermore, given the inaction of the judicial authorities, other remedies to obtain redress, through a civil suit for damages, for example, have no realistic prospect of success. The Burundian authorities have taken few measures to compensate victims of torture, a point raised by the Committee in its 2006 concluding observations concerning the State party’s initial report (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 23). The complainant adds that he has not received any form of rehabilitation to ensure that he recovers as fully as possible in physical, mental, social and financial terms. The crimes committed against the complainant have gone unpunished, given that his torturers have not been convicted, prosecuted, investigated __________________ 6 7 8 8/15 The complainant recalls that, in its concluding observations concerning the State party’s initial report, adopted on 20 November 2006, the Committee expressed concern at the “lack of systematic and effective monitoring of all places of detention, notably through regular unannounced visits by national inspectors and a mechanism for legislative and judicial monitoring ” (CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 19). In his initial complaint, the complainant also notes that the State party has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which provides for the establi shment of a national mechanism for the prevention of torture. [Since then, on 18 October 2013, the State party acceded to the Optional Protocol.] The complainant refers to communication No. 341/2008, Sahli v. Algeria, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 9.6; communication No. 187/2001, Thabti v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 10.4; communication No. 60/1996, M’Barek v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 10 November 1999, para. 11.7; and communication No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.2. Given that he himself is a former member of the Burundian National Police, the police officers with whom he has kept in contact told him of a plan for his imminent execution. GE.15-16176