CAT/C/71/D/843/2017 Lack of cooperation from the State party 4. On 20 September 2017 and on 19 June, 15 November and 17 December 2019 the State party was requested to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that it has received no response and regrets the lack of cooperation from the State party in sharing its observations on the present complaint. 21 It recalls that the State party is obliged, pursuant to the Convention, to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and indicating the measures, if any, that may have been taken to remedy the situation. In the absence of a response from the State party, due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations, which have been properly substantiated. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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. 5.2 In the absence of any obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee proceeds to its consideration of the merits of the claims submitted by the complainant under articles 1, 2 (1), 11–14 and 16 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 6.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. As the State party has not provided any observations on the merits, due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations. 6.2 The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that she was beaten by police officers, who brutally hit her all over her body with the butts of their rifles and nightsticks and kicked her on the head, back and abdomen. The Committee also notes that (a) the police kept the complainant in front of the headquarters of the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie for more than two hours while she was bleeding from the head, neck, arms and other parts of her body that had been hit during the police beatings; (b) the police officers did not allow Burundi Red Cross personnel to provide the complainant with medical attention; (c) instead of being taken to hospital, the complainant was taken to the National Intelligence Service, where she was insulted and subjected to intimidation; and (d) it was only as a result of pressure from a civil society organization that the complainant was taken to hospital. The Committee notes furthermore that the hospital did not comply with requests from the complainant’s lawyer for her medical records to allow him to present evidence to the authorities of the abuse she had suffered. The Committee likewise takes note of the complainant’s allegations that the blows she received caused her extreme pain and suffering, including anguish and psychological suffering, and were reportedly deliberately inflicted by agents of the State with the objective of punishing and intimidating her. At no time have these allegations been contested by the State party. In these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the facts as presented by the complainant constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.22 6.3 The complainant also invokes article 2 (1) of the Convention, under which the State party should have taken effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. In this respect, the Committee 21 22 6 Ndagijimana v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/496/2012), para. 7; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi (CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 and Corr.1), para. 7; and Ntikarahera v. Burundi (CAT/C/52/D/503/2012), para. 4. Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.2; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.2; Kabura v. Burundi (CAT/C/59/D/549/2013), para. 7.2; and Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 8.2. GE.21-13853