CAT/C/55/D/522/2012 noted that the complainant has not complained to the national court of a lack of promptness on the part of the public prosecutor. The complainant rushed to bring a claim before the Committee only four months after lodging his complaint with the public prosecution service, without waiting for the outcome of the complaint or contacting the authorities once more. As a result, the Sta te party submits that, since the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies, he has demonstrated either a lack of willingness or ignorance of the law, or has abused the right to bring a case before an international legal instance. Complainant’s comments on admissibility and on the merits 5.1 On 6 February 2014, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He points out, first of all, that the State party has not disputed the validity of the steps he took to report the acts of torture inflicted on him to the prosecuting, administrative and political authorities or those taken by non governmental organizations concerned with the protection of human rights. He rejects the argument that he has not exhausted domestic remedies: referring to his initial complaint, he notes that he sought recourse from the judicial system — albeit in vain — on several occasions, having reported the incidents of torture to the prosecuting authorities and to judges of various courts, including, on 6 July 2010, the investigating judge in the case brought against him. On 9 February 2012, he also filed a formal complaint with the public prosecutor, which was supported by photographs taken by observers from the United Nations Office in Burundi two days after his transfer to Mpimba prison. Since no action was taken in response to these complaints, he once more filed a complaint on 5 June 2012. In July 2010, the arrest and torture of Mr. Gahungu and others arrested in the same context were also reported pu blicly by human rights organizations, the United Nations Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Burundi and the United Nations Office in Burundi. The administrative and political authorities were thus fully aware of the incidents. Yet, more than three and a half years since they occurred, 10 they continue to go unpunished. The complainant further argues that deficiencies in the judicial system and risks to his physical integrity prevented him from taking other steps to assert his rights. In addition, given that they were fully informed of the reported incidents, the authorities had the obligation to conduct a thorough, prompt, impartial and independent investigation into the complainant’s allegations of torture. 5.2 Concerning the torture complaint lodged by the complainant on 9 February 2012, which is purportedly still being dealt with by the Bujumbura court of major jurisdiction, the complainant points out that the State party has not provided any evidence that such proceedings are in progress, b y referring to either the status of the investigation, investigative procedures or even the related documentary evidence, such as transcripts of hearings or reports, when, in fact, it is the only one that can produce such evidence. Furthermore, research has revealed that case file No. 7271/ME in the investigation that was purportedly initiated actually relates to the case of another person. Lastly, even if such a case file was still pending, it would not represent an obstacle to the admissibility of the complainant’s communication, given the amount of time that has elapsed since then. There is no indication that the judicial authorities plan to undertake an effective, thorough, impartial and independent investigation. Yet, according to article 22 of the Act of 20 July 1999 providing for the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “the public prosecutor ’s office exercises the public right of action and ensures compliance with the law.” 11 With this in mind, the seriousness of the allegations it was called upon to examine should have prompted the public prosecutor’s office to proceed to the initiation of criminal proceedings in respect of __________________ 10 11 10/15 It has now been more than five years. New Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 47. GE.15-16176