CAT/C/59/D/549/2013 found in every civilization in the world. The State party requests the Committee to take account of the impasse arising as a result of the complainant’s departure from his country, after his release, to seek asylum in South Africa, and to give no credence to the serious accusations he has levelled without the benefit of an evidence-based public hearing. The State party rejects the accusations, which are not supported by any solid evidence. 4.4 According to the State party, effective measures have been taken to prevent acts of torture; in particular, torture has been defined as an offence in the new Criminal Code of 2009, which provides for tough, and therefore dissuasive, penalties for it. It invites the Committee to acknowledge that the accusation that there is no independent and systematic monitoring of places of detention and the treatment of detainees is mere speculation and shows a lack of awareness of how the legal system works. The State party maintains that there has been no violation of the obligation to conduct prompt and impartial investigations into the torture of the complainant, since he fled the country almost as soon as he was released on bail and since such investigations were automatically rendered impossible by his absence. 4.5 Regarding compensation for the complainant, the State party adds that it is premature to be claiming damages when no final judgment has definitively established that the offence of torture took place. 4.6 Finally, the State party notes that the interim protection measures requested by the complainant are inappropriate and irrelevant in light of his refugee status in South Africa and appeals to him to return to his home country, promising to guarantee his protection and that of his family once he returns. In conclusion, the State party rejects the complainant’s claims and asks the Committee to declare them unfounded. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 8 October 2014, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He rejects the argument that he did not exhaust domestic remedies and repeats that, nearly seven years and five months after the events, no investigation has been opened. He points out that, for the purposes of admissibility of individual communications, the Committee requires the exhaustion of only effective, useful and available remedies. The complainant notes that, by granting him political asylum, the authorities of South Africa recognized the reality of the threats against him, and that the State party is downplaying the seriousness of the threats that compelled him to flee. 5 The complainant recalls the case of Traoré v. Côte d’Ivoire, in which the Human Rights Committee considered that a person who is forced to flee his country because of threats by the national security services is prevented by insurmountable obstacles from exhausting all domestic remedies. He reiterates that domestic remedies have proven to be useless and ineffective, were unreasonably prolonged and constituted a danger for him, and that no other remedy was available to him because of his forced exile. 5.2 The complainant recounts all the legal steps he took, including the submission of a complaint of torture to the investigating judge on 12 June 2007 and to the public prosecutor at Bujumbura city hall on 27 June 2007, which met with no response. Objectively speaking, the initiation of legal action against the investigating judge and the public prosecutor for denial of justice and violations of procedural time limits had no prospect of success. Moreover, the State party does not provide any precise information or figures on criminal cases opened by the judicial authorities that would allow the effectiveness of domestic remedies to be confirmed and evaluated. The active efforts made by the police to track 5 GE.17-01070 See communication No. 1759/2008, Traoré v. Côte d’Ivoire, Views adopted on 31 October 2011. 5