CAT/C/52/D/503/2012 investigation police purely because people had started to gather around him and were thus unwelcome witnesses. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the violence was inflicted with any legitimate objective. Furthermore, the use of force was disproportionate, given that the complainant was under the control of a police commissioner and about a dozen men, was beaten while he was on the ground and was totally helpless. Lastly, the complainant notes that there is no doubt about the fact that the perpetrators of the violence against him are public officials (the mayor, the police commissioner and the officers of the criminal investigation police). 3.5 The complainant also invokes article 2, paragraph 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”. However, although there is no statute of limitations under Burundian law for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, when the offence of torture is committed outside those particular contexts it is subject to a statutory limitation of from 20 or 30 years, depending on the circumstances.13 Furthermore, the measures the Committee recommends that States parties should take to prevent torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty — such as maintaining an official register of detainees, upholding the right to receive independent legal assistance and independent medical assistance without delay and to contact relatives, and making judicial remedies available that such persons may use to challenge the legality of their detention or treatment — were not taken in the complainant’s case.14 The complainant adds that his is not an isolated incident and that serious human rights violations by police officers largely go unpunished in Burundi. Having failed to adopt legislative or other necessary measures to prevent torture, the State party has, according to the complainant, failed to meet its obligations under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 3.6 The complainant also invokes article 11 of the Convention, noting that the State party failed to meet its obligations concerning the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment. His detention was unlawful. He was not informed of the charges against him, did not have access to legal counsel and was not brought before a judge at any time during his detention. As it was materially impossible for him to assert his rights through legal channels, he was unable to challenge his detention or lodge a formal complaint concerning the torture to which he had been subjected. Furthermore, he was not examined by a physician, despite the critical condition he was in upon his arrival at the premises of the criminal investigation police. Consequently, the complainant concludes that the State party failed in its duty to duly monitor the way in which he was treated during his detention at the premises of the criminal investigation police.15 3.7 The complainant also maintains that article 12 of the Convention, under which the competent authorities are to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed, has been violated 13 14 15 GE.14-04314 Article 146 of the Criminal Code. Committee’s general comment No. 2, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/63/44), annex VI, para. 13. The complainant recalls that, in its concluding observations concerning the State party’s initial report, the Committee expressed concern at the “lack of systematic and effective monitoring of all places of detention, notably through regular unannounced visits by national inspectors and a mechanism for legislative and judicial monitoring” (CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 19). In his initial complaint, he also notes that the State party has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which provides for the establishment of a national mechanism for the prevention of torture. [Later, on 18 October 2013, the State party acceded to the Optional Protocol.] 7