CAT/C/71/D/843/2017 recalls its conclusions and recommendations concerning the initial report of Burundi, in which it urged the State party to take effective legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent all acts of torture and all ill-treatment and to take steps, as a matter of urgency, to bring all places of detention under judicial control and to prevent its officials from making arbitrary arrests and engaging in torture. 23 In the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s allegations that she was beaten by police officers and then detained without an arrest warrant, without any legal basis, and without the possibility of contacting a defence lawyer, for more than one and a half months, leaving her outside the protection of the law. The Committee also notes that the State party did not take any measures to protect the complainant until non-governmental organizations intervened to support her. Lastly, the State authorities have taken no steps to investigate the acts of torture suffered by the complainant and to adopt the appropriate punitive measures, despite the complaints that she had repeatedly presented in this regard. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention.24 6.4 The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 of the Convention was violated because the State party failed to properly oversee the treatment she received while in detention. She alleges, in particular, that; (a) despite her critical state of health at the time of arrest, she did not receive appropriate care; (b) she was not given access to a lawyer until a month and a half after her arrest, without being assisted during her interrogation at the public prosecutor’s office on 21 March 2014; (c) she was arrested without being informed of the charges against her; (d) she did not have effective remedies to take action against the acts of torture; and (e) she was detained in “deplorable conditions” at the Mpimba prison, despite her critical state of health. The Committee recalls its concluding observations regarding the second periodic report of Burundi, in which it expressed concern at the excessive length of time during which people can be held in police custody, numerous instances in which the allowable duration of police custody has been exceeded, failures to keep registers with information on persons in custody or failures to ensure that such records are complete, failures to comply with fundamental legal safeguards for persons deprived of their liberty, the absence of provisions that guarantee access to a doctor and access to legal assistance for persons of limited means and the excessive use of pretrial detention in the absence of regular reviews of its legality and of any limit on its total duration.25 In the present case, the complainant appears to have been deprived of any form of judicial oversight. In the absence of any compelling evidence from the State party that it did supervise the complainant’s detention, the Committee finds that the State party has violated article 11 of the Convention.26 6.5 In respect of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s allegations that, on 8 March 2014, she was beaten by police officers during a police intervention at the headquarters of the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie. Although she filed a complaint on 14 March 2014 with the Bujumbura State Prosecutor and also reported the torture she had suffered before the judge at a closed hearing on 25 April 2014, no investigation had been conducted, almost six years after the events. The Committee considers that so long a delay in initiating an investigation into allegations of torture is patently unjustified. In this regard, it draws attention to the State party’s obligation under article 12 of the Convention to ensure that its competent authorities proceed automatically to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.27 The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 12 of the Convention. 6.6 By failing to meet this obligation, the State party has also failed to fulfil its responsibility under article 13 of the Convention to guarantee the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint, which presupposes that the authorities provide a satisfactory response by 23 24 25 26 27 GE.21-13853 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 10. Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.4; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.3; Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.4; and E.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/56/D/578/2013), para. 7.5. CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10. E.N. v. Burundi, para. 7.6. Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.5; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.5; Kabura v. Burundi, para. 7.4; and Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.4. 7