CAT/C/55/D/522/2012 or even questioned, which reveals a violation of his right to redress under article 14 of the Convention. 3.10 The complainant reiterates that the violent acts inflicted upon him constitute torture, in accordance with the definition set out in article 1 of the Convention. However, and as a subsidiary argument, even if the Committee did not agree to qualify it as torture, the abuse endured by the victim in any case constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and on that basis, the State party had the obligation, under article 16 of the Convention, to prevent and repress the commission, instigation or tolerance of such acts by State officials. In addition, the complainant points to the conditions of detention imposed on him from 1 to 6 July 2010, including being continuously handcuffed in a cramped lavatory, deprived of food and forced to drink water from the toilet, which unquestionably constitute inhuman and degrading treatment. In Mpimba prison, where he was transferred, the complainant was also subjected to appalling conditions of detention as a result of the overcrowding prevailing in that prison. 9 The complainant further refers to the Committee’s concluding observations relating to the initial report of the State party, in which the Committee had considered the conditions of detention in Burundi as amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 17). Lastly, the complainant recalls that he did not receive medical care during the first 12 days of his detention. The medicines needed to treat his condition were provided by his family and the medical examinations prescribed for him were not carried out. The complainant concludes that the State party failed to meet its obligations under article 16 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 2 December 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. At the outset, the State party notes that, for several days following his discharge from the national police, the complainant showed antisocial behaviour that led to the initiation of criminal proceedings against him. The complainant was charged with illegal possession of firearms that threatened the national public order. This led the police to arrest and question him, and the case was referred to the public prosecutor for investigation. 4.2 The State party adds that, during the three hearings comprising his trial (on 7 April, 14 June and 5 July 2011), the complainant was assisted by counsel; all hearings were conducted by means of public and adversarial proceedings; the complainant was aware of the charges against him; and he was able to reply freely to the judge ’s questions. Given the seriousness of the charges, the judicial authorities decided to keep the complainant in detention pending the outcome of the proceedings and denied his request for interim release. The complainant was sentenced on 18 October 2011 to 1 year of rigorous imprisonment by the judge of the Municipality of Bujumbura. Despite this, he chose not to appeal the decision, which consequently became final. Since the complainant had already spent more than a year in prison prior to his conviction, he was released on the date of the decision, namely 18 October 2011. 4.3 As for the complainant’s allegations that he was subjected to torture, the State party indicates that the complainant lodged a complaint on 9 February 2012 and that an investigation, registered as No. 7271/ME, was instituted by the prosecutor at Bujumbura city hall on 26 March 2012. The complaint was admitted and was registered in accordance with article 39 of Act No. 1/015 of 20 July 1999, which states that “the public prosecutor shall receive complaints and reports of wrongdoing, and shall determine what action to take in response to them, in particular, whether there are grounds for proceeding to prosecute”. The case is still pending. It should also be __________________ 9 GE.15-16176 In 2011, more than 4,000 people were imprisoned there, even though the maximum capacity of the facility is 800 persons. 9/15