CAT/C/53/D/514/2012 addition to compensation for the material injury caused. 11 By depriving him of criminal proceedings, the State party has deprived the complainant of his principal legal means of obtaining compensation. Furthermore, given the passivity 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 the conclusions and recommendations adopted following its consideration of the State party’s report in 2007. 12 He recalls that the State party’s obligation to ensure that redress is obtained includes, but is not limited to, the provision of compensation for the harm suffered, and must also include the adoption of measures to ensure non-repetition, notably through the imposition on the perpetrators of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the acts. This involves, first and foremost, opening an investigation and prosecuting those responsible.13 In the case of the complainant, the crime committed against him remains unpunished, as his torturers have not been convicted, prosecuted, investigated or affected in any way at all, which is a violation of his right to redress under article 14 of the Convention. 3.8 Under article 15, the complainant recalls that the torture sessions he underwent were intended to make him confess his involvement in preparing an alleged coup d’état. The abuse stopped as soon as he signed a statement admitting his supposed guilt. Only on the basis of those confessions could judicial proceedings be brought against him, for without them there would be no grounds for the charge against him (preparing a coup d’état). Although the authorities were aware that they had been obtained under torture, the statements were never declared null and void. On the contrary, they were used to keep the complainant in detention for more than 5 months, in violation of the provisions of article 15 of the Convention. 3.9 The complainant repeats that the violence inflicted on him was torture, in accordance with the definition in article 1 of the Convention. However, and alternatively, even if the Committee were not to characterize it as such, the abuse suffered by the victim in any case constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and accordingly the State party was obliged, under article 16 of the Convention, to prevent and punish the commission or instigation of, or acquiescence in, these acts by public officials. Furthermore, the complainant recalls the conditions of custody that he had to endure for his five and half months of detention, first in the Intelligence Service cells, then in Mpimba prison. These two places of detention are characterized by overcrowding 14 and insanitary conditions (see paras. 2.7 and 2.14 above). He refers again to the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, in which it noted that conditions of detention in Burundi “amount to inhuman and degrading treatment”. 15 Lastly, he recalls that he received no medical care while in detention in the Intelligence Service cells, despite his critical condition, and therefore concludes that the conditions of detention he experienced constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention. 11 12 13 14 15 GE.15-00394 The complainant refers to a decision of the International Court of Justice, case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Judgment of 19 June 2012. CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 23. The complainant refers, among others, to communication No. 212/2002, Urra Guridi v. Spain, decision adopted on 17 May 2005, para. 6.8. He adds that his contention is in line with the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee (Bautista Arellana v. Colombia, communication No. 563/1993, 23 October 1995, para. 8.2; Colonel et al. v. Colombia, communication No. 778/1997, 24 October 2002, para. 6.2); and of the European Court of Human Rights (Assenov v. Bulgaria, 90/1997/874/1086, 28 October 1998, paras. 102 and 117; and Aksoy v. Turkey, 100/1995/606/694, 18 December 1996, para. 90). In May 2011, according to a source cited by the complainant, Mpimba prison held more than 4,000 detainees, whereas its maximum capacity is 800. CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 17. 9