Application to the investigative court on disagreement with the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention
To the Maktaaral District Court of Turkestan region
Maktaaral district, Myrzakent settlement, madikhodzhayev Street, house No. 17.
130209@sud.kz
From The Defender: Lawyer Sarzhanov Galymzhan Turlybekovich
Legal Office" law and law"
IIN 201240021767.
Republic of Kazakhstan, 050002, Almaty,
Almaly district, Abylai Khan Ave., house 79/71, office 304.
www.zakonpravo.kz info@zakonpravo.kz
Tel.: +7 708 578 57 58 / 8 727 978 57 55.
Suspect: AE K
Yin ....
Turkestan region, Maktaaral district,.... village, Zhastar Street, house 12.
Application
on disagreement with the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention
In the Proceedings of the senior investigator of the TB Police Department of Maktaaral District of the Police Department of the Turkestan region D. K. Zhaksylyk (hereinafter-the investigator), materials of the criminal case No. 255143031000056 with respect to the E. K aka (hereinafter-the suspect) on the signs of the composition of the criminal offense provided for by Part 2 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan are being considered.
In the course of the investigation, E. K. A was recognized as a suspect for intentional acts aimed at inciting religious discord, insulting the National Honor and dignity or religious feelings of citizens, and on March 2, 2025, he was detained in accordance with Article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, arrested in a temporary detention center of the Police Department of Maktaaralsky district, and then arrested in a pre-trial detention center, sanctioned by the investigative court.
According to the investigator, “the suspect E. A. from 01.07.2024 to 01.01.2025 was born on 23.06.1991, a resident of the House No. 11b Kazakhstan Street, Atakent Village, Maktaaral district.... "in the group "" Atakent Brothers "" on the social network "" watsap"", which includes 40 people, committed the crime of inciting religious discord by repeatedly distributing the sermons of" "Dilmurat Abu-Muhammad ""Mahamatov Dilmurat and ""Nazratullah Abu-Mariam "" prohibited by law to promote the religion of negative orientation." "what's the matter?"
The Republic of Kazakhstan, having established itself as a democratic, secular, legal and social state, its highest values are man, human life, rights and freedoms (paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution).
At the same time, everyone has the right to protect their rights and freedoms by all means that do not contradict the law and receive qualified legal assistance (paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 13 of the Constitution).
In this regard, 04.04.2025 from the side of the defense, we sent a petition to the investigator to remove the protocol of interrogation of the suspect from the materials of the criminal case, recognizing it as illegal and invalid as evidence.
On March 1, 2025, at 15 o'clock, the investigation conducted a thorough investigation of its motives. From 35 minutes to 16 hours. Within 10 minutes, the suspect completed the interrogation protocol.
Section 4 of Article 216 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan as for the specifics of interrogation of a suspect, it states that in cases provided for in Article 67 of this code, the presence of a defender is mandatory, taking into account the provisions of part two of Article 69 of this code.
However, during the discussion of this protocol in the pre-trial detention center on 03.04.2025, the investigation revealed a gross violation of Section 4 of Article 216 of the criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
In fact, on March 1, 2025, at 15 o'clock. From 35 minutes to 16 hours. During the interrogation of the suspect within 10 minutes, it was found that the defender was not present, and we believe that the signature of S. Aknazarov, called as a defender in the protocol, was put later or with another person.
So, the investigator of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan 60-64, 80, 81, 110, 115, 197, 199, 208-210, 212, 216 it is established that the interrogation was carried out in violation of the requirements of the code without compliance with the norms of articles.
Dear court, we do not agree with the decision of this investigator, because there is no reason to arrest the suspect AE Kanatbaevich. the suspect is A E. K., has not been previously convicted, has not been prosecuted, has a permanent place of residence, and is identified.
The suspect, A E. K., does not intend to hide from the prosecution authorities or the court, or to interfere with an objective investigation of the case or its trial in court.
In addition, the suspect A. K., The only breadwinner of his family, a dikhanist, married, legally married spouse: Ospanova Dinara Nurzhanovna, who has 5 (five) minor children from a common marriage (engaged in child support at home):
1. AA Asiya Yesenovna born on 15.12.2013
2. AA Aisha Yesenovna born 26.05.2015
3. K. Ali Esenovich born 10.10.2017
4.K...Y Omar Yessenovich born on 24.11.2020
5.K... Abdullah Yessenovich born on 23.08.2022
We also believe that the actions of the suspect E. K. are not properly classified, and his actions do not contain the composition of the criminal offense provided for by Part 2 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
If we carefully study the matreials of the criminal case, the group of people named E. K., intentional actions aimed at inciting religious discord through preliminary collusion, insulting the National Honor and dignity or religious feelings of citizens, as well as attempts to promote their exclusivity, superiority or incompleteness on the basis of their attitude to religion, gender-group, National, Tribal or racial affiliation of citizens are not identified.
E. K. did not use public or mass media, telecommunications networks and online platforms in his actions, nor did he commit any actions in the preparation or dissemination of literature or other information carriers promoting religious discord, and the investigation did not identify such actions.
The investigation provided the following information as part of the inquiry of its resolution: “the suspect E. A. from 01.07.2024 to 01.01.2025 was born on 23.06.1991 by his acquaintance, a resident of the House No. 11b, Kazakhstan Street, Atakent Village, Maktaaral district. Together with Baglan Yerzhanovich Musabekov, 40 people in the group "Atakent Brothers" on the social network "watsap" deliberately committed the crime of inciting religious discord by repeatedly distributing sermons of "Dilmurat Abu-Muhammad" Mahamatov Dilmurat and "Nazratullah Abu-Mariam"prohibited by law to promote the religion of negative orientation. "what's the matter?"
However, the investigation unfortunately did not pay attention to the arguments of the defense lawyer, without finding out what religion was in a negative direction and what current religion, what actions the suspect caused religious discord, what sermons of Dilmurat Abu-Muhammad and Nazratullah Abu-Mariam were banned by the NPA of the Republic of Kazakhstan or judicial acts.
In accordance with Article 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Article 19 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, everyone is considered innocent until his guilt in committing a criminal offense is proven in accordance with the procedure provided for by this code and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force. No one is obliged to prove their innocence.
Unresolved doubts about the guilt of the suspect, accused, defendant are interpreted in their favor. Doubts arising in the application of criminal and criminal procedure laws must also be resolved in favor of the suspect, accused, defendant.
Judicial acts cannot be based on assumptions and must be supported by a sufficient set of admissible and clear evidence.
The object of the crime under consideration is public relations that ensure international peace and the safe existence of religious groups, the conditions of honor and dignity of citizens, their constitutional rights and freedoms.
The objective side of this crime is the incitement of religious discord, the protection of the religious feelings of citizens, the promotion of the difference, superiority or inferiority of citizens ' views on religion.
Various actions that arise as a result of the formation of a feeling of hostility, hatred or hatred towards representatives of a particular race, nation, ethnic or religious group constitute a corpus delicti in the presence of: propaganda of the uniqueness or superiority of one human group over others, discrimination against representatives of a particular race.
Insulting religious feelings means disrespect for religious dogmas and canons recognized by a citizen or the personal qualities of a citizen associated with his religious affiliation, gross mockery, ridicule of honorary objects, signs and emblems of worldview symbols (slander, discrimination, humiliation, mockery).
The subjective side is characterized by direct intentional intent: the guilty person understands that he commits actions aimed at inciting religious hatred or Discord, insulting the National Honor and dignity or religious feelings of citizens, as well as promoting exclusivity, superiority or inferiority in public or using the media or telecommunications networks, as well as through the preparation or distribution of literature or other media of this information.
Incitement to social, National, Tribal, racial, lineage-group or religious discord is recognized as committed by a group of people if an association in which two or more performers conspired is involved in its creation. A group of persons is recognized as conspiring if these actions are attended by persons who previously agreed on their joint commission.
– However, in the material of the criminal case, there is no evidence and information about the alleged conspiracy of the suspect with a group of damdar, the preservation of videos and their distribution, actions aimed at inciting religious hatred or Discord, insulting the National Honor and dignity or religious feelings of citizens.
Given the above arguments, there was an abuse of trust on the part of the investigation, according to the evidence submitted to the investigative court, the suspect E. K. name has grounds for release, the suspicion of committing a criminal offense has not been confirmed, there are no grounds for applying a preventive measure in the form of arrest.
In accordance with Part 2 of Article 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (circumstances taken into account when choosing a preventive measure and establishing additional restrictions) on the grounds specified in Article 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the suspect does not intend to hide from the criminal prosecution authorities or the court, to prevent an objective investigation of the case, its consideration in court,
Under Part 1-1 of Article 136 of the criminal Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. When choosing a preventive measure for a suspect, we ask you to consider the possibility of applying a preventive measure not related to isolation from society, taking into account the above-mentioned circumstances, if possible.
There are no sufficient grounds to believe that the suspect, hiding from the criminal prosecution authorities or the court, interferes with an objective investigation or discussion of the case in court, or continues to engage in criminal activity.
We also believe that the actions of the suspect were not properly differentiated. There are grounds for the release of the suspect, the suspicion of committing a criminal offense is not confirmed, there are no grounds for applying a preventive measure in the form of arrest, a preliminary conspiracy on the part of the suspect on the motive of the investigation is not justified, the evidence of which is an additional answer to your name in my defense, as well as the sharing of audio videos with your name in the investigation is unjustified, the forensic examination is not ready to date.
Under Part 1-1 of Article 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan. When choosing a preventive measure for a suspect, we ask you to consider the possibility of applying a preventive measure not related to isolation from society, taking into account the above-mentioned circumstances, if possible.
Relatives of the suspect are ready to put their property as collateral in court.
There are no sufficient grounds to believe that the suspect, hiding from the criminal prosecution authorities or the court, interferes with an objective investigation or discussion of the case in court, or continues to engage in criminal activity.
I ask the court to choose a preventive measure in the form of house arrest or bail. We are ready to provide bail in the form of property or cash to the court.
Defender: Sarzhanov Galymzhan Turlybekovich
"21" April 2025
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
