CAT/C/59/D/549/2013 being unlawful in the absence of an arrest warrant. In addition, there is no effective, systematic monitoring system for places of detention. The complainant therefore believes that there was also a violation of article 11 of the Convention. 3.4 Although the Burundian authorities were informed about the torture of the complainant, they failed to carry out a prompt and effective investigation, in violation of their obligation under article 12. 3.5 No action was taken on the complaint submitted by the complainant on 27 June 2007, even though it was supported by photographs and a medical certificate dated 12 June 2007. In addition, the State party did nothing to protect the complainant, on his release from prison, from being intimidated as a consequence of the action he had taken before the judicial authorities. The case was not promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities, contrary to what is prescribed by article 13. 3.6 The State party has not complied with its obligation under article 14, since, on the one hand, the crimes committed against the complainant have gone unpunished and, on the other, he has received no compensation or benefited from rehabilitation measures for the torture he suffered. 3.7 The Burundian authorities have not rendered null and void the confessions obtained from the complainant under torture; on the contrary, they have used them to open judicial proceedings against him for attempted murder and to keep him in detention for two months and 20 days, contrary to what is prescribed by article 15 of the Convention. 3.8 The complainant repeats that the violence inflicted on him was torture, as defined in article 1 of the Convention. In the alternative, if the Committee did not agree to qualify it as torture, the abuse endured by the victim in any case constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and, on that basis, the State party had the obligation, under article 16 of the Convention, to prevent and punish the commission, instigation or tolerance of such acts by State officials. In addition, the conditions of detention imposed on the complainant entail a violation of article 16, since they are tantamount to inhuman and degrading treatment. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 15 July 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party requests that the communication be declared inadmissible on the grounds that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies. After being granted bail, he disappeared from view, violating all the conditions of his provisional release and thus blocking the investigation of his case. The State party submits that it is impossible for the public prosecutor to conduct effective investigations and establish the truth about the torture allegations in the absence of the purported victim. The State party is of the view that there was no real, objective threat to the complainant’s life and that if the authorities had wanted to kill him, it would have been no problem to do so rather than grant him bail while he was in detention. 4.2 The State party maintains that the domestic remedies the complainant claims to have used were rendered ineffective by the complainant himself, not by the authorities, and invites the complainant to return to Bujumbura, as there is no risk to his physical safety. The State party suggests that the complainant is relying on generalizations about the Burundian judicial system and on false pretexts to conclude that he would not be treated fairly by the justice system and that his remarks about the authorities and justice system of the State party verged on being contemptuous and insulting. 4.3 According to the State party, the complainant’s historical analysis of the various events and political regimes in the country contains many errors, and the country’s political past has no direct relationship with his isolated case. It adds that incidents of this kind are 4 GE.17-01070