CAT/C/62/D/496/2012
the prosecutor and no action was taken in follow-up, even though the perpetrators of the
offences he had been subjected to were clearly identified.
2.11 The complainant points out that, under article 392 of the Criminal Code of Burundi,
any judge who refuses to administer justice after having been petitioned to do so is liable to
a prison sentence of 8 days to 1 month and/or a fine of 50,000 to 100,000 Burundi francs.
He notes, however, that a case brought on the basis of that provision would have no
objective chance of success, since in all likelihood the prosecutor would enjoy the same
protection as those who had committed the offences. In view of his numerous attempts to
institute legal proceedings, all in vain, the complainant also notes that both the judicial and
the administrative authorities were, and are still, clearly unwilling to prosecute or punish
those responsible. On 30 January 2012, the governor of Cibitoke Province was even
promoted by the country’s President to the position of Director General of the Burundian
Rural Water Agency of the Ministry of Energy and Mines. For the complainant, the
promotion is undeniable evidence that the Burundian authorities never intended to punish
the governor for the violations of his rights. In addition, the governor’s behaviour showed
that he was wholly untroubled by the prospect of being prosecuted: since his return to
Cibitoke, the complainant has encountered him on several occasions. The governor
challenged him with his gaze and even suggested going for a drink, a suggestion that the
complainant rejected categorically.
2.12 Besides the clear refusal of the authorities to determine responsibility in this case,
the complainant draws attention to the general climate of impunity in Burundi, particularly
with regard to acts of torture, which has been the subject of numerous reports issued by
international bodies.8 He stresses in particular that the Committee has expressed concern
about the ineffectiveness of the judicial system of the State party and requested it to take
vigorous measures to eliminate the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of acts of torture
and ill-treatment, whether they are State officials or non-State actors; conduct timely,
impartial and exhaustive inquiries; try the perpetrators of such acts and, if they are found
guilty, sentence them to punishment commensurate with the gravity of the acts committed;
and provide adequate compensation to the victims. 9 According to the complainant, the
failings of the State party’s judicial system perpetuate the climate of impunity, and the
judiciary’s dependence on the executive, a matter raised by the Committee, 10 is a major
obstacle to the prompt initiation of impartial investigations when there are substantial
grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed. In conclusion, the complainant
states that he cannot be expected to attempt to take legal recourse against the inaction of the
judicial authorities, as any such attempt would be doomed to failure.
2.13 The complainant therefore submits that: (a) the domestic remedies available to him
have provided him with no satisfaction, as the authorities, who should have opened a
criminal investigation, have not responded to his complaints; (b) the remedies have taken
an unreasonably long time, as it had been four years since the events in question, and no
investigation had been opened; and (c) it was dangerous for him to take further steps, as the
persons responsible for the acts of torture were the provincial governor and police officers.
2.14 The complainant states that he is still affected — he has back trouble, for instance —
by the beating he received. He is physically diminished, unable to lift heavy objects or work
in the fields, which puts him at a considerable disadvantage. His social and financial
situation is also of concern, as he has not found work since the events in question and is
heavily indebted as a result of his hospitalization.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that Burundi has violated his rights under articles 2 (1), 12,
13 and 14, read in conjunction with article 1 or, in the alternative, with article 16 of the
Convention.
8
9
10
4
The complainant refers specifically to the Committee’s concluding observations on the initial report
of Burundi, adopted on 20 November 2006 (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 21).
Ibid., para 11.
Ibid., para. 12. The complainant also refers to the Report of the Independent Expert on the situation of
human rights in Burundi (see A/HRC/17/50, para. 59).
GE.18-00818