CAT/C/71/D/858/2018 finds that the facts concerning A.H., as presented by the complainant, constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.38 6.5 The Committee notes that A.H.’s enforced disappearance was a source of anguish and suffering for B.N. and that the authorities were indifferent to his efforts to shed light on what had happened to his son and his son’s whereabouts. The successive complainants have never received a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances of his disappearance. In the absence of satisfactory explanations from the State party, the Committee considers that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 16 of the Convention in respect of B.N.39 6.6 The complainant also invokes article 2 (1) of the Convention, under which the State party should have taken effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. In this regard, the Committee recalls its conclusions and recommendations, in which it urged the State party to take effective legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent all acts of torture and all ill-treatment, 40 and to take all possible action to locate persons reported as missing, in particular those who go missing after being questioned by the security forces.41 In the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s allegations that A.H. was beaten and forcibly taken away by members of the security forces. The Committee also notes that A.H. has not been reported or acknowledged as missing by the authorities of the State party and that no measures have been taken to protect him. The State authorities have not taken any steps to investigate the acts of torture to which A.H. was subjected or his enforced disappearance, or to punish the perpetrators of these acts, even though B.N. reported these facts to the various police stations and detention centres, the National Intelligence Service and the Independent National Human Rights Commission. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of compelling evidence from the State party, the Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention.42 6.7 The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 was violated, as the State party failed to respect any procedural safeguards in respect of A.H., since he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and was arrested without a warrant. He was not able to contact his family, did not receive legal assistance, and was not able to be examined by a doctor. The Committee recalls its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Burundi, in which it expressed concern at: the excessive length of time during which people can be held in police custody; numerous instances in which the allowable duration of police custody has been exceeded; failures to keep registers on persons in custody or failures to ensure that such records are complete; failures to comply with fundamental legal safeguards for persons deprived of their liberty; the absence of provisions that guarantee access to a doctor and access to legal assistance for persons of limited means; and the excessive use of pretrial detention in the absence of regular reviews of its legality and of any limit on its total duration.43 In the present case, A.H.’s arrest and detention appear to have been carried out without any judicial oversight. In the absence of compelling evidence from the State party that the complainant’s arrest and detention were in fact subject to its oversight, the Committee finds a violation of article 11 of the Convention.44 6.8 With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that, more than four years after the events, no prompt, impartial and effective investigation has been opened into the allegations that A.H. was subjected to torture, even though the authorities had reasonable grounds to believe that such acts had been committed, as the complainant had referred the matter to the various police centres and to the Independent National Human Rights Commission. The Committee also notes that the State 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 GE.21-12084 Hernández Colmenarez and Guerrero Sánchez v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, paras. 6.4 and 6.10; Yrusta and Del Valle Yrusta v. Argentina (CAT/C/65/D/778/2016), paras. 7.3 and 7.10. Hernández Colmenarez and Guerrero Sánchez v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, para. 6.10. CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 10. CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 11 (b). Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.4; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.3; Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 8.3; and E.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/56/D/578/2013), para. 7.5. CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10. E.N. v. Burundi, para. 7.6. 9