CAT/C/56/D/578/2013
on 13 December 2012 so that it could set a date for a hearing. The Burundian
authorities have therefore exercised all due diligence in this case.
4.2 According to the State party, proceedings could have taken place fairly swiftly if
the victim’s lawyer had not entered into interminable debates with the prosecutor’s
office regarding the prosecution of four other police officers even though, as a result
of its investigation, the prosecutor’s office had concluded that charges should be
brought against one suspect only. Therefore, in attempting to dictate the direction to be
taken by the prosecutor’s investigation, the complainant’s lawyer contributed to the
procedural delays. If he believed that there were irregularities in the case because the
investigation had not been impartial or had been incomplete, the lawyer could have
referred the matter to the State Prosecutor (who is the immediate superior of the
Prosecutor General of the Bujumbura court of appeal) or the Minister of Justice, who
is empowered by law to instruct the prosecutor’s office to investigate a given
individual. The complainant’s lawyer, who was aware of the available remedies, could
also have waited until the public hearing took place to raise the issue of such
irregularities.
4.3 The State party also notes that the complainant visited the office of the presiding
judge of the Rohero local court in person and informed the judge that he would return
with a written notice of his intention to file a criminal indemnity suit to claim redress
in the form of compensation. However, the presiding judge has been awaiting his
return ever since that date. The case has been left pending the establishment of a date
for the public hearing, but it has been assumed that the individual concerned is no
longer interested in pursuing the matter. Were it not for these obstructions, it is likely
that a court decision would have been handed down in this case by now.
4.4 The State party further points out that, contrary to the complainant’s claims, the
acts in question cannot be classified as acts of torture pursuant to the definition of
torture contained in the Criminal Code of Burundi, which stipulates that such acts
must be committed with the aim of obtaining information or a confession. Even
though the Burundi prosecutor’s office has taken note of the reprehensible acts
committed against the complainant by police officers, those officers were not acting
on an order from their superiors, and they had no authority to forcibly recover any
debts which the bus driver might owe to customers. Consequently, if a customer did
happen to have asked a police officer to intervene, and the officer agreed to the
request, it had been done on the spur of the moment and out of ignorance of the law.
The Committee should not therefore take the view that the police officer was acting on
any sort of order from his superiors; the incident was an unfortunate chance
occurrence that was unpremeditated and unplanned. Furthermore, the persons accused
by the complainant are low-ranking police officers who, contrary to the complainant’s
allegations, have neither the authority nor the influence to prevent judicial proceedings
from being initiated in response to his complaint. Furthermore, it should be noted that
the offence of assault can carry a custodial sentence of up to 20 years, depending on
its seriousness.
4.5 With regard to the complainant’s claims for compensation, the State party
maintains that it is up to the Burundian court that tries the case to determine what
damages are due if it finds that the offence of assault was indeed committed. The
Burundian courts regularly hand down decisions in which they award compensation to
victims.
4.6 As for the protection measures that have been requested, the State party notes
that the complainant, who is currently living in Burundi, has not received any threats
and has never had any cause to be concerned for his safety. The interim measures
requested by the Committee are therefore inappropriate and unnecessary.
GE.16-01380
7/12