CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 Burundian criminal law does not oblige prosecutors to prosecute perpetrators of torture or even to order an investigation.6 3.6 The complainant also invokes article 13 of the Convention, arguing that no inquiry was opened into his allegations, despite the filing of a formal complaint on 22 September 2006 for acts of torture. No action was taken in response to his complaint, even though it was supported by sound evidence resulting from an expert examination. The case was thus not examined promptly and impartially, contrary to what is prescribed by article 13. Furthermore, the lawyer of another person arrested by officers of the National Intelligence Service in the same circumstances as the complainant was himself thrown into prison after having reported the torture suffered by his client. 7 According to the complainant, this amounts to an act of intimidation against the victims in the case and against their counsel for raising legitimate fears concerning their safety. In conclusion, the complainant submits that the State party did not ensure his right to bring a complaint and to have his allegations examined promptly and impartially, in violation of article 13 of the Convention. 3.7 The complainant further considers that the State party has violated its obligation under article 14, since, on the one hand, the crimes committed against him have gone unpunished and, on the other, he has received no compensation and has not benefited from rehabilitation measures for the torture he suffered. Given the passivity of the judicial authorities, other remedies to obtain redress, through a civil suit for damages, for example, have no realistic prospect of success. The Burundian authorities have taken few measures to compensate victims of torture, a point raised by the Committee in its concluding observations following its consideration of the State party’s report in 2006 (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 23). With regard to his right to rehabilitation assistance to help him recover as fully as possible in physical, psychological, social and financial terms — which he has not received — the complainant submits that, in its concluding observations, the Committee also highlighted with concern the absence of any measures to provide victims with the means to exercise this right. In addition, the complainant recalls that the State party’s obligation to ensure that redress is obtained includes, but is not limited to, the provision of compensation for the harm suffered, and must also include the adoption of measures to ensure non-repetition of the acts. This involves, first and foremost, opening an investigation and prosecuting those responsible. 8 In the case of the complainant, the crime committed against him remains unpunished, which is a violation of his right to redress under article 14 of the Convention. 3.8 The complainant reiterates that the violent acts inflicted on him constitute torture, in accordance with the definition set out in article 1 of the Convention. However, and as a subsidiary argument, even if the Committee did not agree to qualify it as torture, he maintains that the abuse endured by him in any case constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and on that basis, the State party also has an obligation, under article 16 of the Convention, to prevent public officials from committing, instigating or tolerating such acts and to punish them if they do. In addition, he recalls the conditions of custody that he had to endure for his five months of detention, first in the Intelligence Service cells, then in Mpimba prison. These two places of detention are characterized by overcrowding and insanitary conditions. 9 He refers again to the Committee’s concluding observations, in which it noted that conditions of detention in Burundi amount to inhuman and degrading treatment (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 17). Lastly, he recalls that he received no medical 6 7 8 9 GE.18-00819 The complainant refers to the Committee’s recommendation in this regard, that the State party should make clear the obligation of the competent authorities to institute, systematically and on their own initiative, impartial inquiries wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 22). The complainant refers to Déogratias Niyonzima, in whose case the Committee already adopted a decision on 21 November 2014 (Niyonzima v. Burundi, CAT/C/53/D/514/2012). The complainant refers among other things to Urra Guridi v. Spain (CAT/C/34/D/212/2002), para. 6.8. He adds that these views are in line with the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee (Bautista v. Colombia, CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993, para. 8.2; and Coronel et al. v. Colombia, CCPR/C/76/D/778/1997, para. 6.2). In May 2011, according to a source cited by the complainant, Mpimba prison held more than 4,000 detainees, whereas its maximum capacity is 800. 5