In a landmark ruling against Burundi, the UN Committee against Torture has set a precedent on the protection of lawyers and human rights defenders engaging with UN mechanisms, affirming that reprisals for cooperating with the UN violate the Convention Against Torture.
In a precedent-setting decision on reprisals, the Committee against Torture (CAT) has found that Burundi violated the Convention against Torture by retaliating against four lawyers for cooperating with the Committee, including through their disbarment and suspension from legal practice.
In its Views adopted on 21 November 2025 and made public this week, the Committee held that Burundi breached article 13 of the Convention, which obliges States to protect complainants and witnesses from intimidation or retaliation for engaging with UN mechanisms.
The case concerned Dieudonné Bashirahishize, Armel Niyongere, Vital Nshimirimana, and Lambert Nigarura, all of whom provided information to the Committee during its review of Burundi’s human rights record in July 2016.
The ruling comes five years after ISHR supported all four lawyers in filing a legal complaint with the Committee in response to Burundian authorities’ brazen acts of retaliation against them. Alongside their disbarment, the victims and their families were also threatened, had their property arbitrarily seized, and were forced to leave Burundi and go into exile.
‘This decision confirms that defending human rights is an act that is always consistent with the oath taken by lawyers. It defends the universal values shared by humanity and reminds us that the manipulation of a judiciary subject to the orders of the executive always has its limits. Those in power can commit many abuses, but it will always be difficult for them to hide the truth.’Dieudonné Bashirahishize
‘This decision confirms an essential truth: defending human rights and cooperating with the UN is not a crime, it is a duty. When a State persecutes lawyers for carrying out their mission, it violates international law. This recognition strengthens our determination to continue the fight for justice, alongside victims, until impunity ends.’Armel Niyongere
The Committee reaffirmed in unambiguous terms that reprisals for UN engagement are themselves serious human-rights violations: ‘Pursuant to article 13 of the Convention, each State party shall take steps to ensure that a complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his or her complaint or any evidence given,’ the ruling stated
It further recognised that reprisals may fall within the scope of the absolute prohibition of torture:
‘The Committee recalls its view that reprisals constitute a form of cruel treatment or punishment under article 16 of the Convention and may amount to torture in certain circumstances.’
Committee members found that the disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers — launched the same day Burundi withdrew from dialogue with the CAT — were not coincidental, but were taken because of their cooperation with the UN.
In addition to the reprisals themselves, the Committee found that Burundi’s refusal to engage with the individual complaints procedure constituted a further violation of the Convention: ‘The Committee remains deeply concerned about the State party’s failure to cooperate with the individual complaints procedure’, concluding that ‘the State party’s refusal to cooperate with it also constitutes a violation […] of article 22 (3) of the Convention.’
The Committee ordered Burundi to:
This decision is the clearest ruling by a UN treaty body that reprisals against human rights defenders for engaging with the United Nations are unlawful and may amount to cruel, inhuman or even torturous treatment.
‘This ruling sets a vital precedent for the entire UN human rights system,’ said ISHR’s Madeleine Sinclair, who accompanied the complainants since 2020. ‘It affirms that States cannot misuse disciplinary or judicial processes to punish those who cooperate with the UN and that doing so strikes at the core of the international human rights system,’ Sinclair concluded.
The highest human rights court in Latin America delivered its landmark 300-page Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency and Human Rights, reaffirming the right to defend the environment and the obligation to protect those who defend it.
