A/HRC/36/31 obtained from anonymous sources that were impossible to verify, or information provided by “opposition politicians.” On the second day of the dialogue on 29 July 2016, the Government of Burundi suspended its participation and the delegation was absent. Immediately after the interruption of the dialogue, the Committee was informed of a letter from the Attorney General of Bujumbura, dated 29 July 2016, requesting that the Bujumbura Bar Association disbar four lawyers, three of whom had participated in the briefings with the Committee and were present during the first day of the dialogue (Armel Niyongere, Dieudonné Bashirahishize and Lambert Nigarura) and one who was a signatory of the coalition report sent by the NGOs, Vital Nshimirimana. 13. On 5 August 2016, the Committee’s rapporteur on reprisals sent a letter to the Government, expressing concern that the Attorney General’s request related to the cooperation of these members of civil society with the Committee and mentioned its concerns over reprisals in its concluding observations from the session (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/2/Add.1, para. 33-34). On 11 August 2016, the Government responded to the Committee’s letter, indicating that the request of disbarment had been made in the course of legal proceedings against three of these lawyers. The lawyers concerned were charged with “participation in an insurrectional movement, attempted coup d'état, trafficking of images and, in the case of one of the lawyers, because he regularly violated the laws and regulations by his statements and pronouncements,” without giving further information. 14. On 12 August 2016, the Committee replied that the request for disbarment was preempting the outcome of an ongoing criminal case, which had not led to a finding of guilt, and requested further information. On 29 September 2016, the Bar Association of Burundi declared, while proceedings were pending before the Bujumbura Court of Appeal, that the request for disbarment by the Attorney General was unfounded. However, on 16 January 2017, the Bujumbura Court of Appeal decided to disbar Armel Niyongere, Dieudonné Bashirahishize and Vital Nshimirimana, and to suspend Lambert Nigarura for a period of one year, although he was not under criminal investigation. 15. In a letter dated 21 February 2017, the Committee indicated that the disbarment of the lawyers before the conclusion of the pending criminal procedures against them was preempting the outcome and seemed to reinforce the hypothesis that disbarment was a measure of reprisal for the active participation of these lawyers during the Committee’s examination of the State party’s report. At the time of finalization of the present report, no further response had been received from the Government. 16. The experts conducting the independent investigation on Burundi pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-24/1, in their report (A/HRC/33/37) also raised concerns regarding the threat of reprisals for those individuals who cooperated or who wished to cooperate with the investigation. The experts noted that “UNIIB faced several challenges, including the fact that two of its four planned visits could not be carried out”. They further noted that “some victims and witnesses feared reprisals.” In their recommendations, they also stressed that “the Government should immediately cease its reprisals and threats against individuals who have cooperated with the investigation, and other human rights mechanisms and organizations”. 17. On 14 June 2017, the chair of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi briefed the Human Rights Councilb and stated that the Commission received information from a large number of exiled Burundians who were afraid to provide testimonies for fear of reprisals. In the briefing, she noted that, similarly, human rights defenders who still operate in the country find it hard to gather testimony from victims inside the country for fear of exposing themselves and the victims to the risk of reprisals. b 18 OHCHR, Oral briefing by Chair of Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, 14 June 2017.