CAT/C/56/D/578/2013 remain unpunished. Accordingly, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention. 7 7.6 The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 wa s violated because the State party failed to properly oversee the treatment he received while in detention. In particular, he claims that he was not formally arrested but rather placed in police custody; that he was not informed of the charges against him; that his detention was unlawful; and that he was not examined promptly by a doctor, despite his critical condition. The Committee recalls its concluding observations regarding the second periodic report of Burundi, in which it expressed concern at: the ex cessive 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 on persons in custody or failures to ensure that such records are c omplete; 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 (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10). The Committee observes that the complainant appears to have been deprived of any form of judicial oversight. In the absence o f any 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. 7.7 With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee has noted that an investigation into the facts of the case was initiated promptly the day after the events in question. The Committee also notes the complainant’s allegations that the investigation was vitiated by a number of shortcomings, including the legal classification of the acts concerned; the fact that only one of the five police officers under suspicion was investigated; the fact that, even though the case was referred to the Rohero local court on 13 December 2012, the case has not yet been heard; and the fact that, almost three years after the proceedings were initiated, the judicial authorities have taken no action against the only police officer to have been investigated. The State party contests the referral of the case to the Committee by the complainant on the grounds that the latter has filed a complaint with the domestic authorities, but it has provided no evidence which might help the Committee to ascertain what progress has been made, to judge how effective the procedure might be or to explain the reasons for such a delay. The Committee considers that such a long delay is clearly in breach of the State party’s obligations under article 12 of the Convention, which requires it to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 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 complainant’s right to lodge a complaint, which presupposes that the authorities provide a proper response to such a complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 8 7.8 With regard to article 14 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s claim that he has not been provided with any type of rehabilitation measure designed to ensure that he recovers as fully as possible in physical, psychological, social and financial terms. The Committee recalls that article 14 not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate compensation but also requires States parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, in which it establishes that States parties shall ensure that victims of torture or 7 8 GE.16-01380 See, inter alia, communication No. 522/2012, Gahungu v. Burundi, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 7.6. See Gahungu v. Burundi, para. 7.8. 11/12