CAT/C/59/D/549/2013 down and arrest the complainant a few weeks after his release on bail demonstrate the Burundian authorities’ desire to hush up the affair. In addition, several human rights organizations, the United Nations Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi and the Inter-Parliamentary Union have denounced the torture of the complainant by officers of the National Intelligence Service. In conclusion, the complainant submits that he cannot reasonably be expected to wait seven years and five months for the outcome of a purported investigation that has not demonstrably taken place. 5.3 On the merits, the complainant maintains that his description of the Burundian context is in no way either insulting or erroneous and that it is not intended to discredit the State party. Rather, it is an account of the prevailing situation in the State party that is relevant to the consideration of the present complaint. 5.4 He reiterates that he has indeed provided evidence in support of his allegations of torture and adds that the State party does not refute this evidence. In addition, he points out that the State party has not opened an investigation to reject or confirm his allegations of torture. 5.5 In response to the State party’s comments describing the treatment of the complainant as uncomfortable and unfortunate, and thus implicitly questioning whether he was actually tortured, he reiterates his earlier comments and adds that the acute suffering, going well beyond the threshold of discomfort described by the State party, was inflicted on him not only during his detention but also during his interrogation. He draws attention to the evidence, such as the photographs and medical certificate, which corroborate his story, as well as the findings of human rights associations and the United Nations Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi. In addition, he argues that his treatment in detention — i.e. the lack of medical treatment, the deprivation of water, food and access to a toilet — should be taken into account to conclude that he was indeed tortured. 5.6 He was tortured for unlawful motives, including to extract a confession and information from him, and the torture only ceased when the complainant confessed in writing to the acts of which he was accused. It was this confession that served as the basis for his pretrial detention. Moreover, the intent of the torturers to make the complainant suffer acutely was evident. The use of instruments and techniques of torture confirms that the acts were deliberate and planned. 5.7 The complainant also submits that the State party violated its positive obligations under articles 2 (1), 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, and he repeats the arguments he advanced in his initial submission. As for the violation of article 2 (1), he points out that the adoption of legislation is not sufficient to effectively prevent torture. Burundian legislation does not explicitly deny the validity of confessions obtained under torture and applies no time bar to criminal proceedings in cases of torture committed outside the specific contexts of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. He recalls that he was arrested without a warrant; his detention was extended illegally, and there was no effective remedy to challenge it; he was brought before the judge after the legal limits had expired; he was not allowed to receive visits in the first days of his detention or to receive prompt legal assistance; he did not receive adequate medical care; his complaint was not examined promptly with a view to opening an investigation; no medical evaluation could be established; and he never received any compensation. 5.8 With regard to the violation of article 11 of the Convention, the complainant refers to the arguments advanced in the initial complaint and notes that the State party fails to provide evidence or details on the operation of the prison system. He further maintains, with regard to the State party’s obligation to conduct an investigation in accordance with articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, that the State cannot justify its inaction based on the fact that the complainant had fled, since his torture had been reported to the authorities 6 GE.17-01070