6.4 委员会还注意到，申诉人认为《公约》第 11 条遭到违反，因为缔约国没有对他在拘留期间受到的待遇进行必要的监督。他特别指出：(a) 尽管他在被捕时情况危急，但没有得到适当的护理；(b) 他在被捕一个半月后才见到律师，因此2014 年 3 月 14 日在检察院接受讯问时没有律师协助；(c) 他在被捕时未被告知指控罪名；(d) 他没有质疑酷刑行为的有效补救办法；(e) 尽管他的健康状况危急，但仍被关押在“条件恶劣”的 Mpimba 监狱。委员会回顾其关于布隆迪第二次定期报告的结论性意见，其中委员会对以下情况表示关切：警方拘留时间过长；多次超过拘留期限；无入狱登记或登记不全；不遵守对被剥夺自由者的基本法律保障；没有关于就医或贫困人员获取司法援助的规定；过度使用审前拘留，因为缺乏对其合法性的定期审查和对其总时限的限制。15 在本案中，申诉人似乎被剥夺了任何形式的司法监督。鉴于缔约国没有提供任何令人信服的证据，证明它确实对申诉人的拘留情况有所监督，委员会认为缔约国违反了《公约》第11 条。16
6.4 The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 of the Convention was violated because the State party failed to properly oversee the treatment he received while in detention. He argues, in particular, that: (a) despite his critical condition at the time of arrest, he did not receive appropriate care; (b) he was not given access to a lawyer until a month and a half after his arrest and was therefore not assisted during his questioning at the public prosecutor’s office on 14 March 2014; (c) he was arrested without being informed of the charges against him; (d) he did not have effective remedies to challenge the acts of torture; and (e) he was detained in “deplorable conditions” at Mpimba prison, despite his critical state of health. The Committee recalls its concluding observations regarding 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 permissible duration of police custody has been exceeded, failures to keep registers on persons in custody or 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.15 In the present case, the complainant appears to have been deprived of any form of judicial oversight. In the absence of any compelling evidence from the State party that it did supervise the complainant’s detention, the Committee finds that the State party has violated article 11 of the Convention.16