CAT/C/62/D/496/2012
hospital for a month to recover fully, he had to leave after three weeks as a result of his
financial situation, which prevented him paying for hospitalization any longer. The
complainant also had to pay to have his smashed glasses replaced.3
2.6
On 5 March 2008, the complainant left the hospital. Two days later, he states, five
police officers turned up at his house in his absence and asked his children where he was.
On 10 March 2008, the communal administrator, a relative of the complainant, informed
him that the governor was looking for him and that that very morning he had ordered him to
take the complainant into custody and let him know as soon as he had done so. The
complainant therefore decided to leave the province and stay in Bujumbura for a month.
2.7
After his arrival in Bujumbura, the complainant turned to Radio Publique Africaine
— one of the most popular radio stations in Burundi — which produced a story on the
attack he had been subjected to by order of the governor of Cibitoke Province and on the
searches the governor had carried out in an attempt to find him. The story received much
attention. As a result of this public denunciation, the incidents were also brought to the
attention of the State party’s authorities, who did not respond. The governor, while being
interviewed by the journalists from Radio Publique Africaine, publicly asked the
complainant to report to his office for a discussion of his case. Fearing that he would be
subjected to the same treatment as before, or detained without cause, the complainant did
not respond to that request. A few months later, the governor again attempted to contact the
complainant, this time through a neighbour, to propose a friendly settlement of their
“dispute”, but the complainant once again firmly rejected the proposal.
2.8
The complainant chose instead to pursue the legal proceedings that he had initiated
on 6 March 2008, after leaving the hospital, by suing for damages in criminal proceedings
against the governor of Cibitoke Province before the public prosecutor at the Supreme
Court.4 He cited his status as a victim of torture in the complaint. 5 After the submission of
the complaint, the examining judge summoned the complainant and the governor several
times in order to compare their accounts of the events. As the governor reported to the
prosecutor’s office only after the fifth summons, there was only one hearing before the
examining judge. During the hearing, the governor denied responsibility for the blows
received by the complainant. He nonetheless acknowledged that the police officers had
beaten the complainant. The judge decided to hold another hearing, at which the governor
did not appear. There has been no follow-up to the governor’s refusal to appear.6 No other
investigative action has since been taken.
2.9
The complainant, noting that the proceedings had not moved forward three years
after the incident, resubmitted his complaint to the public prosecutor at the Supreme Court
on 3 February 2011.7 This new submission did not lead to any investigation of the facts or
prosecution of the perpetrators.
2.10 The complainant stresses that, in addition to the formal steps he took, the offences
against him were publicly reported, in particular in broadcasts by Radio Publique Africaine.
Consequently, they were certainly brought to the attention of the Burundian authorities,
who could not have been unaware of them. However, no action has been taken to ensure
that these serious offences are investigated, that the perpetrators of the acts are prosecuted
and punished or that the complainant receives redress. The complainant was heard once by
3
4
5
6
7
GE.18-00818
A copy of the bill is provided in the annex to the case file.
Under article 138 of Act No. 1/08 of 17 March 2005, the Court Organization and Jurisdiction Act,
only a prosecutor from the National Public Prosecution Service may take on, investigate and
prosecute an offence with which a range of officials liable to first-instance proceedings in the Judicial
Chamber of the Supreme Court have been charged. Provincial governors, mentioned in subparagraph
8 of the article, are among the officials who enjoy this jurisdictional privilege.
A copy of the complaint may be found in the annex to the case file.
The complainant is of the opinion that the examining judge could have ordered the governor to appear
by direct summons, as provided for in article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that
public prosecution officials may issue a summons to appear to anyone whose testimony they deem
necessary. The duly summoned person is obliged to appear and respond to the summons.
A copy of the complaint is included in the annex to the case file.
3