CAT/C/53/D/514/2012 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 merits of the communication. The State party first contests its admissibility, arguing that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies, since a complaint of torture lodged on 22 August 2006 with the Attorney General’s Office is still pending. An investigating judge has been assigned to the case. In order to establish the complainant’s degree of physical incapacity, the judge decided to seek sworn expert testimony from a doctor approved by the Government of Burundi, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and with article 12 of the Convention. 16 4.2 The State party maintains that the communication is abusive. Although the information presented to the Committee is correct, the complainant seems to have political motives. He was not deprived of a fair trial and the judicial authorities have never been passive. His case was closed when the Supreme Court handed down its judgement acquitting him. 4.3 As to redress for injury and rehabilitation, the State party says that it is favourable to the idea of using available means to meet this obligation. It also points out that the other accused, who stayed in Burundi, are now in senior positions in the Senate and the National Assembly. The State party therefore considers that the complainant’s claims in respect of redress and rehabilitation should be dismissed. 4.4 As to the grounds for his detention, the State party recalls that criminal proceedings were brought against the complainant in 2006 and that he was arrested in that context on suspicion of committing or aiding and abetting two serious offences, namely, attempted violation of internal State security and attempted conspiracy to harm persons and property. He was ultimately acquitted by the Supreme Court of Burundi. The State party submits that the release of a person who has been unjustly detained constitutes protection of individual rights. The acquittal is proof of Burundi’s firm commitment not to violate the rights of citizens by irregular and unlawful imprisonment. In conclusion, the State party rejects the complainant’s claims and asks the Committee to declare them without merit. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 6 February 2014, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He rejects the contention that he has failed to exhaust domestic remedies and repeats that, more than seven years after the facts, no investigation has been opened, contrary to the State party’s claims, which are unsubstantiated. Furthermore, even if an inquiry had been opened, it would not be an impediment to the admissibility of the communication, given the unreasonable length of time that has elapsed. 17 The complainant recalls all the legal steps he took, including the submission of a formal complaint of torture on 17 August 2006 to the Attorney General’s Office, which remains unaddressed. In conclusion, the complainant submits that he cannot reasonably be expected to wait seven years and five months for the outcome of a purported investigation that has not been shown to have taken place. 16 17 10 The State party refers to the medical report mentioned by the complainant, and to the related document placed on file by the complainant: see para. 2.13 above. The complainant refers to communication No. 8/1991, Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, decision adopted on 18 November 1993, para. 13.5, in which the Committee determined that a delay of 15 months before initiating an investigation into allegations of torture, which then failed to yield a result in two years, is unreasonably long and releases the complainant from the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies. GE.15-00394