CAT/C/56/D/578/2013 4.7 For all the above reasons, the State party invites the Committee to conclude that the communication is inadmissible by reason of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies and that appropriate and effective measures were adopted without delay by the authorities of Burundi in response to the incident. It also in vites the Committee to reject the complainant’s claim for redress, including compensation, and to refer him to the domestic court assigned to the case, which will consider his claim for damages and pass judgement on the matter. Complainant’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 1 September 2014, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He recalls that he continues to suffer the consequences of the torture to which he was subjected and has not been provided with any rehabilitation measures, while the perpetrators of the offences committed against him go unpunished. 5.2 The fact that the complainant has submitted a complaint to the Committee does not mean that he has withdrawn the complaint lodged with the Burundian judicial authorities. The complainant rejects the State party’s argument that he failed to pursue the matter with the national authorities. 5.3 Although the State party believes that protection measures are unnecessary and inappropriate, it has not provided any evidence to reassure the complainant as to his safety. Furthermore, the situation in the country has grown considerably worse, with those in power adopting a harsher attitude towards persons who voice opinions that are contrary to those of the current regime. Accordingly, the complainant’s fears are entirely justified, especially since Burundi has yet to adopt legislation on victim and witness protection and therefore lacks a structural legislative framework for addressing such matters. 5.4 As to the argument that the complainant should have availed himself of domestic remedies and that those remedies have been shown to be reliable, given the diligence with which the authorities responded to the incident, the complainant recalls that, although an investigation was initiated the day after the event in question, it was not conducted in a diligent or impartial manner and was impeded in various ways. The remedies should be considered unsatisfactory owing to the irregularities in the investigation and the unreasonable delays in pursuing the case. With reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 5 the complainant recalls that, whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that acts of torture have been committed, the State must automatically initiate an investigation, regardless of the grounds for the suspicion. The complainant cannot be held responsible for delaying the proceedings, since the decision to conclude the discussions lay with the judicial authorities and, specifically, the prosecutor. This observation also holds true for action to follow up on the case; the State bears primary responsibility for conducting a thorough examination of the complainant’s case once the incident has been reported. Moreover, in view of the unreasonable delays in the proceedings, the complainant must not be expected to wait until the public hearing — a date for which has still not been set — to report the irregularities that occurred in the investigation. That would be tantamount to penalizing the complainant for the authorities’ lack of diligence in examining the case. 5.5 In addition, and referring again to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 6 the complainant maintains that the application of domestic remedies has proved to be 5 6 8/12 See, inter alia, Committee against Torture, Hanafi v. Algeria, para 9.6; Thabti v. Tunisia, para. 10.4; M’Barek v. Tunisia, para. 11.7; and Blanco Abad v. Spain, para. 8.2. The complainant recalls that, in the case of Sonko v. Spain (communication No. 368/2008, decision adopted on 25 November 2011), the Committee was of the view that an enquiry that had been under way for a little more than 19 months, without a prompt and impartial investigation having been GE.16-01380