CAT/C/71/D/843/2017
adopted on 20 November 2006, the Committee expressed concern about the judiciary’s de
facto dependence on the executive. 11 Then, in its concluding observations on the second
periodic report of Burundi, the Committee expressed concern about the slow pace and limited
scope of the investigations and judicial proceedings that have been opened in this connection,
which would appear to corroborate claims that the perpetrators of acts of torture and
extrajudicial killings by the Burundian National Police and the National Intelligence Service
enjoy impunity.12 Lastly, in its concluding observations of August 2016 on the special report
of Burundi, the Committee stated that Burundi should put an end to impunity and ensure that
all cases and allegations of torture and ill-treatment are promptly investigated in an effective
and impartial manner.13
2.12 Consequently, the complainant claims that: (a) she gained no satisfaction from the
available domestic remedies, as the authorities did not respond to her reports whereas they
should have opened a criminal investigation on the basis of her allegations; (b) the remedies
took an unreasonably long time, given that three years and four months after the acts of torture
were reported, on 14 March 2014, no investigation had been opened; and (c) it was dangerous
for her to take further steps, as she fled Burundi with her family while she was still supposed
to be in detention and the perpetrators of the acts of torture were police officers and persons
close to the current Government.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that Burundi has violated her rights under articles 2 (1) and
11–14, read in conjunction with article 1 or, in the alternative, with article 16 of the
Convention, and under article 16 of the Convention, read alone.
3.2
According to the complainant, the mistreatment inflicted on her caused her severe
pain and suffering, with a lingering impact on her physical and psychological health. Among
the after-effects of the torture she underwent in March 2014, the complainant reports physical
pain, but also anxiety, insomnia, hallucinations and depressive disorders. 14 The objective of
the police officers who brutally beat her was precisely to cause such suffering: they beat her
on the most sensitive areas for a woman, such as her back, kidneys and breasts. What is more,
she was denied access to care from the Red Cross personnel who were on the scene, and
instead of being rushed to hospital to receive the medical treatment she clearly needed, she
was taken to the National Intelligence Service, where she was insulted and subjected to
intimidation. These acts of torture, inflicted by members of the national police, were aimed
at intimidating, punishing and putting pressure on her because of her political affiliation. The
complainant maintains that the mistreatment constituted acts of torture under the meaning of
article 1 of the Convention.
3.3
The complainant, invoking article 2 (1) of the Convention, submits that the State party
has not taken effective measures to prevent acts of torture under its jurisdiction. Specifically,
throughout her detention, the complainant did not receive appropriate medical care. On the
contrary, the presence of police officers at the hospital and the unhealthy conditions at the
Mpimba prison contributed to the deterioration of her physical and psychological health. The
complainant did not have access to a lawyer until the closed hearing on 25 April 2014, i.e.,
more than a month and a half after her arrest, with no lawyer present during the questioning
at the public prosecutor’s office on 21 March 2014. Secondly, despite the reports and a formal
complaint submitted by the complainant, the State party did not meet its obligation to
investigate the torture that was inflicted on her and to bring those responsible for those acts
to justice. Lastly, the complainant points out that in Burundian law, apart from the special
circumstances of war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide, acts of torture
committed outside such specific contexts are subject to a statute of limitations of 20 or 30
years, depending on the circumstances.15 Accordingly, the complainant submits that the State
11
12
13
14
15
4
CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 12.
CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 11.
See CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1.
As reported by the complainant on 25 July 2016, in a transfer note from a clinic.
Burundi, Criminal Code, art. 150.
GE.21-13853