CAT/C/53/D/514/2012 5.2 On the merits, the complainant repeats his earlier comments, adding that the State party has provided no argument showing a connection between his acquittal and the inappropriateness of the communication. He further submits that the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him does not make the torture he underwent any less criminal. Nor does his acquittal justify the lack of a prompt and impartial investigation by the authorities to verify the allegations of torture brought to their attention. 5.3 As to redress and rehabilitation, in the complainant’s view it cannot be argued, as the State party is doing, that his acquittal in a criminal proceeding unrelated to the incident of torture justifies the lack of redress. In addition, the complainant notes that it is hard to see how the professional positions of others arrested at the same time as him — positions to which they were in fact elected — could be seen as a measure of rehabilitation in respect of the complainant.18 State party’s additional submission 6.1 On 16 June 2014, the State party submitted additional comments. It repeats that the Attorney General’s Office was duly informed by the complainant’s counsel that a complaint had been registered against two members of the Burundian police in the Intelligence Service and that criminal proceedings have been brought against them. According to the State party, the Attorney General’s Office cannot obtain sufficient information on the events in question or the nature of the alleged violations because the victim and his counsel are absent or unavailable and are thus not cooperating with the investigation. The complainant left the country before his complaint of torture was resolved. The State party adds that proceedings are still in progress and that the Burundian courts still have jurisdiction. The judge assigned to the case has been unable to interview the victim or the suspects for the record and it has not been possible to organize a judicial confrontation. Accordingly, the judge in the Attorney General’s Office has not been able to complete the investigation and the case has not been referred to the criminal court for resolution. As a result, it has not been possible to pronounce sentence or order compensation. The State party therefore considers that the allegations will engage its responsibility only when they have been considered by the competent courts, and repeats that it is the complainant’s own fault that the proceedings have been unreasonably lengthy. 6.2 On the merits, and with regard to the torture alleged by the complainant, the State party recalls that the medical examination showed that he had suffered bodily harm reminiscent of acts of torture, whereas the lesions observed under X-ray are more likely to be the result of a fall and cannot be explained by direct blows to the body. The State party adds that it is possible that the complainant has suffered physical pain, but it is for the competent judge to determine, on the basis of an expert examination, whether the pain is acute or not. The intentional nature of the acts must also be established. Moreover, those responsible for the acts of torture in question have not yet been formally identified. As the victim no longer lives in Burundi, it is now difficult if not impossible to establish whether these are the same injuries that affect his health today. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the case of Déogratias Niyonzima was reported to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention 18 GE.15-00394 The complainant attaches the report on a sinus operation he underwent in the United States in 2010. 11