CAT/C/53/D/514/2012 for an extension of detention submitted to the Court by the Attorney General’s Office was duly considered. In December 2006, the complainant’s counsel again described the acts of torture undergone by his client and requested the application of article 27, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure to void the confessions obtained from the complainant under duress. In his argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the complainant also told of the torture inflicted and called for his acquittal. Thus, the Burundian authorities were informed repeatedly, formally and informally, of the torture suffered by the complainant and could not therefore have been unaware of it. However, six years after the incidents took place, 6 no action has been taken on the complaint. The complainant points out that complaints of torture filed by other victims arrested under the same circumstances have not been investigated. He further states that the shortcomings of the judicial system and the risks to his physical integrity (which forced him into exile) prevented him from taking other steps to assert his rights. 2.22 The complainant therefore submits: (i) that available domestic remedies have given him no satisfaction, as the authorities have not responded to his complaints made since 17 August 2006 (para. 2.19), whereas they should have opened a criminal investigation on the basis of such allegations; (ii) that these remedies have been unreasonably prolonged since, six years after the incidents took place, the complainant has still not been heard and, further, that the shortcomings of the judicial system and the patent lack of independence and impartiality of the courts compound the inaccessibility of remedies;7 and (iii) that it was dangerous if not impossible for him, because of his forced exile, to take any other steps. He recalls the threats he received after his release from prison in January 2007 (para. 2.16). Compelled by the national security services to flee his country and forced into exile, it is now impossible for him to initiate other proceedings in Burundi. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims to have been the victim of violations by the State party of articles 2 (para. 1), 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, read in conjunction with article 1 or, in the alternative, with article 16 of the Convention against Torture. 3.2 The complainant claims that the ill-treatment meted out to him caused acute pain and suffering and constituted torture8 within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. The Intelligence Service officers — agents of the State armed with instruments of torture — repeatedly beat him to the verge of unconsciousness in order to make him confess. This suffering was without any doubt inflicted intentionally, as evidenced by the filthy stone placed in his mouth to stifle his cries and the fact that the torture was filmed. 3.3 The complainant adds that the State party has not taken the necessary measures, legislative or otherwise, to prevent the practice of torture in Burundi, contrary to its obligations under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The acts of torture against him, as well as against others arrested at the same time, remain unpunished. He never received any medical treatment, despite having explicitly requested it and despite the fact that his condition undeniably required medical care. In addition, even though he was mistakenly permitted a visit from his wife and his counsel on the evening of his arrest, he was allowed no further visits thereafter and was thus deprived of his right to contact his family and receive prompt legal assistance. Meanwhile, there are still legal obstacles in the way of effectively preventing and halting the practice of torture. In particular, there is no provision 6 7 8 GE.15-00394 At the time of submission of the communication to the Committee. The complainant refers, in particular, to the continuation of his detention despite the Supreme Court’s decision of 6 October 2006 concerning his release on bail (see para. 2.15 above). The complainant refers, among others, to communication No. 207/2002, Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision adopted on 24 November 2004, para. 5.3. 7