Battery Against Two or More Persons

1. General Characteristics of the Elements of the Criminal Offence

Subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the “Criminal Code”) establishes criminal liability for the same acts provided for in Part 1 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code, where such acts are committed against two or more persons.

The basic elements of the offence under Article 109-1 consist of:

battery or other violent acts that cause physical pain but do not result in the infliction of minor harm to health.

Part 2 classifies such conduct as an aggravated offence where one of the specified qualifying circumstances is present. The first of these is the commission of the offence against two or more persons.

Under the current wording of Part 2 of Article 109-1, the applicable sanctions include a fine ranging from 100 to 200 monthly calculation indices (MCIs), corrective labour in the same amount, community service for a period of 100 to 200 hours, or arrest for a period of 30 to 50 days. (Zakon i Pravo)

Accordingly, qualification under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code requires establishing the following circumstances cumulatively:

1. The existence of physical force or other violent conduct.
2. The infliction of physical pain on the victim.
3. The absence of minor harm to health in the criminal-law sense.
4. The existence of at least two victims.
5. A causal link between the perpetrator’s actions and the physical pain experienced by each victim.
6. The intentional nature of the conduct.
7. The absence of circumstances requiring a different criminal-law qualification.

The principal feature of this offence is not simply the number of blows inflicted, but the plurality of victims.

2. The Immediate Legal Interest Protected by the Criminal Law

The immediate legal interest protected is the set of social relations ensuring the protection of a person's bodily integrity and health.

Battery under Article 109-1 is distinguished by the degree of physical harm caused from the intentional infliction of minor, moderate, or serious harm to health.

It is therefore necessary to distinguish legally between:

• physical pain;
• minor harm to health;
• harm of moderate severity to health;
• serious harm to health.

The mere existence of a medical certificate does not automatically establish the elements of the criminal offence under Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code.

Conversely, the absence of visible bodily injuries does not, in itself, exclude the application of Article 109-1, since its wording expressly covers other violent acts that cause physical pain.

The key issue is establishing the fact of physical force or other violent conduct and its consequences.

3. The Objective Elements of the Offence

3.1. Battery

For the purposes of this offence, battery means the application of physical force to a person's body, whether repeatedly or on a single occasion, including, for example:

• striking with a hand;
• kicking;
• striking with an object;
• pushing;
• grabbing;
• twisting the limbs;
• other forms of physical force.

The legal assessment must be based on the acts actually established, rather than on the colloquial description of the conflict.

Scenario 1.

During a conflict, a person strikes one individual twice with a hand and strikes a second individual once. The medical records do not establish minor harm to health.

If it is proven that both victims experienced physical pain, the conduct may qualify under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code.

Scenario 2.

A person strikes one victim ten times and a second victim once.

The number of blows inflicted on the first victim does not replace the requirement that there be a second victim. The qualifying circumstance is the fact that the violent acts were committed against two or more persons.

4. “Two or More Persons” as the Principal Qualifying Circumstance

This is the central issue concerning the offence under consideration.

For subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code to apply, at least two victims against whom the relevant violent acts were committed must be identified.

It is not necessary for each victim to have received the same number of blows.

Nor is it necessary for the violent acts committed against all victims to be identical.

For example:

• Person A is struck with a hand.
• Person B is pushed and experiences physical pain as a result.
• Person C is kicked.

If these acts occur within the same criminal incident and it is established that all three individuals experienced physical pain, the qualifying circumstance may apply.

However, the mere presence of several people at the scene of a conflict is insufficient.

5. The Need to Identify Each Victim Individually

The court must establish:

1. Who the first victim is.
2. What acts were committed against that victim.
3. What consequences resulted.
4. What evidence establishes that physical pain was caused.
5. Who the second victim is.
6. What acts were committed against that victim.
7. What consequences resulted.
8. What evidence establishes that the second victim experienced physical pain.

A general statement in the indictment that:

“The defendant assaulted the citizens who were present nearby”

is insufficient if it fails to specify:

• who was subjected to the physical force;
• how the force was applied;
• when the acts occurred;
• how many times the victim was struck;
• what consequences resulted;
• what evidence supports these findings.

This is particularly important in light of the evidentiary requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the “Criminal Procedure Code”) and the accused person's right to know the nature and substance of the accusation.

6. The Moment at Which the Criminal Offence Is Completed

For the purposes of subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code, the offence is completed when physical pain is caused to the relevant victim.

Where the acts occur sequentially:

1. Person A is struck.
2. One minute later, Person B is struck.
3. Person A is then struck again.

This does not necessarily mean that three separate criminal offences have been committed.

The court must determine:

• whether there was a single intent;
• whether the incident constituted a single course of conduct;
• whether there was one continuous conflict;
• whether the acts occurred within a common temporal and geographical framework;
• whether the intent changed;
• whether there were separate episodes.

7. The Subjective Elements of the Offence

Battery is an intentional criminal offence.

It is necessary to establish the perpetrator's mental attitude towards their actions.

In a typical case, the perpetrator:

• is aware that they are striking another person;
• understands the physical nature of the force being applied;
• intends to apply physical force or consciously accepts the possibility of its consequences.

For qualification under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1, it is not necessary to establish a specific purpose of causing physical pain in every individual instance.

However, the intentional nature of the violent conduct itself must be proven.

8. No Special Motive Is Required

Subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 does not require a specific motive.

This distinguishes it, for example, from:

• subparagraph 6) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 — motives of social, national, racial, or religious hatred or enmity;
• subparagraph 5) — hooligan motives;
• subparagraph 2) — conduct connected with the victim's professional or official activities.

Accordingly, a personal conflict between several individuals does not, in itself, preclude qualification under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1.

9. Distinguishing Battery from Hooliganism

The existence of two or more victims does not automatically transform battery into hooliganism.

The Regulatory Resolution No. 3 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12 January 2009, On Judicial Practice in Cases of Hooliganism, explains the need to distinguish hooliganism from offences against the person by examining the substance and direction of the intent, the motive, the purpose, and the circumstances of the conduct.

Where battery is committed within a family, against relatives or acquaintances, as a result of personal animosity, the conduct must be qualified under the provisions governing offences against the person.

If, however, the conduct is accompanied by a flagrant violation of public order and an evident lack of respect for society, the question of qualification as hooliganism arises. (Zakon i Pravo)

Therefore, the statement:

“There were two victims; therefore, the offence constitutes hooliganism”

is legally incorrect.

10. Distinguishing Part 1 from Subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code

Part 1:

One or more victims + battery or other violent acts + physical pain + absence of minor harm to health.

Subparagraph 1) of Part 2:

The same acts + two or more victims.

Consequently, the number of victims constitutes an independent qualifying circumstance.

11. Distinguishing the Offence from Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code

If the conduct results in minor harm to health, the act must be qualified under Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code, provided the relevant elements are established.

In other words:

Physical pain without minor harm to health → Article 109-1.

Minor harm to health → Article 108-1.

For this purpose, the forensic medical assessment is particularly important.

A medical or legal conclusion such as:

“The victim has a bruise; therefore, minor harm to health was inflicted”

cannot be used to substitute a legal conclusion for the applicable medical criteria.

A bodily injury and minor harm to health are not equivalent concepts.

12. Distinguishing the Offence from Torture under Article 110 of the Criminal Code

Where the conduct involves the systematic infliction of physical or mental suffering, the possibility of qualification under Article 110 of the Criminal Code must be examined.

The issue of applying Article 110 is particularly relevant in cases involving:

• prolonged violence;
• repeated acts of physical force;
• systematic beatings;
• the infliction of particular suffering;
• violence within a family setting.

A series of violent acts should not automatically be classified as several separate episodes of battery if the factual circumstances indicate the elements of torture.

13. Distinguishing Battery from Hooliganism in Supreme Court Practice

Regulatory Resolution No. 3 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12 January 2009 is of fundamental importance.

The Supreme Court indicates that the following circumstances must be examined when distinguishing the offences:

• the direction of the intent;
• the motive;
• the purpose;
• the circumstances in which the offence was committed;
• the nature of the violation of public order.

Where the conduct arises from a personal conflict, it should be qualified under the provision protecting the person, rather than automatically under the provision governing hooliganism.

14. Investigative Jurisdiction

Since the offence under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 falls within the category of offences subject to public prosecution, the case proceeds through the pre-trial investigation process.

Depending on the specific circumstances, the investigation is conducted by the competent criminal prosecution authority in accordance with the rules on investigative jurisdiction established by the Criminal Procedure Code.

The following concepts must be distinguished:

Investigative jurisdiction — which authority is responsible for conducting the investigation.

Court jurisdiction — which court is competent to hear the criminal case.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, investigative jurisdiction is determined by the set of criteria used to assign the investigation to the competence of a particular criminal prosecution authority.

15. Court Jurisdiction

The principal rule is established in Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

District courts and courts equated to them act as courts of first instance and hear all criminal cases, except those assigned to the jurisdiction of specialised courts. (Zakon i Pravo)

Accordingly, a criminal case under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code, in the absence of special grounds establishing a different jurisdiction, is heard by:

• a district court;
• a city court having the status of the relevant court of first instance;
• another court equated to such a court in accordance with the rules of territorial jurisdiction.

In Almaty, such a case is generally heard by the relevant district court in accordance with the rules of territorial jurisdiction.

16. Territorial Jurisdiction

The place where the criminal offence was committed is the determining factor.

Where the acts were committed in several locations, the rules on territorial jurisdiction established by the Criminal Procedure Code apply.

In practice, the following circumstances must be established:

• the address where the conflict occurred;
• the time of the incident;
• the location where the conflict began;
• the location where the violence ended;
• the location where the victims were found;
• the location where the initial investigative actions were conducted.

17. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The term “subject-matter jurisdiction” is used only to a limited extent in relation to criminal proceedings.

Criminal prosecution is conducted within the criminal justice system, rather than through civil or administrative judicial proceedings.

Accordingly, the issue of a person's guilt in committing the offence under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 cannot be resolved by:

• a civil court;
• an administrative court;
• a court hearing administrative offence cases.

A civil court may hear a separate claim for compensation for damage if such a claim is brought independently and the relevant procedural prerequisites are satisfied.

18. State Duty in Criminal Proceedings

No state duty payable for filing a civil statement of claim is charged for initiating criminal proceedings or considering the accusation under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code.

This is criminal prosecution, not a civil claim.

A separate issue arises where a civil claim is brought for compensation for:

• material damage;
• non-pecuniary damage;
• medical expenses;
• legal representation expenses;
• other directly incurred expenses.

The Criminal Procedure Code permits civil claims for compensation for property damage and non-pecuniary damage to be considered within criminal proceedings. (Zakon i Pravo)

According to the Supreme Court's clarifications, a civil claim within criminal proceedings constitutes an independent procedural claim brought as part of the criminal case. (Zakon i Pravo)

A claimant bringing a civil claim within criminal proceedings is exempt from advance payment of the state duty. If the claim is upheld, the court determines whether the state duty is to be recovered from the civil defendant in accordance with the procedure established by law. (Zakon i Pravo)

19. Separate Civil Claim

If the victim did not bring a civil claim in the criminal proceedings, or if the claim was withdrawn or left without consideration, Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the possibility of bringing the claim under civil procedure. (Zakon i Pravo)

As of 1 January 2026, the new Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 18 July 2025, No. 214-VIII, is in force.

Article 665 establishes the rates of state duty payable in court proceedings.

A state duty of 0.5 MCIs applies to non-pecuniary claims. Property claims brought by individuals are generally subject to a state duty of 1% of the claim amount, unless a special provision establishes otherwise. (Zakon i Pravo)

However, any exemptions from state duty provided for under the Tax Code in respect of claims for compensation for harm caused to health must be examined separately.

20. Pre-Trial Procedure

No mandatory civil-law demand or pre-litigation procedure is required for criminal prosecution under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code.

Before contacting the police, the victim is not required to:

• send a formal demand;
• request a written apology;
• refer the matter to a mediator;
• send the alleged perpetrator a demand for compensation.

Nevertheless, reconciliation and mediation may have significant implications for the criminal-law consequences of the case.

Legal terminology note: The translation preserves the legal propositions and statutory references in the source text. Before using it in court proceedings, an official submission, or a legal opinion, the applicable provisions of the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan should be checked against their current official versions, particularly the applicable sanctions and state-duty rules. The English terms used here are explanatory translations; the official Kazakh and Russian statutory texts remain authoritative.

21. Public Nature of Criminal Prosecution

This is one of the most important issues.

Part 3 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the CPC) lists criminal cases subject to private-public prosecution, including offences under Part 1 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the CC), but not Part 2. Part 6 of Article 32 provides that all other cases are subject to public prosecution.

Accordingly:

Part 1 of Article 109-1 of the CC — private-public prosecution.

Subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the CC — public prosecution.

This means that a statement by the victim declaring:

“I have no claims”

does not automatically constitute grounds for terminating the criminal proceedings.

22. Reconciliation Procedures

Despite the public nature of the prosecution, the reconciliation mechanism may be applied if the conditions established by Article 68 of the CC are satisfied.

Article 68 of the CC provides for exemption from criminal liability in connection with reconciliation and reparation of harm in cases involving criminal misdemeanours and minor or medium-gravity crimes, provided that the statutory conditions are met.

Mediation is also expressly permitted in criminal proceedings involving criminal misdemeanours and minor and medium-gravity crimes.

23. Specific Features of Reconciliation under Article 109-1 of the CC

In relation to subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the CC, the specific restriction established by Article 68 of the CC must also be taken into account.

Part 4 of Article 68 provides that the reconciliation provisions do not apply to a person who commits an offence under Articles 108-1 or 109-1 of the CC during the limitation period following an earlier exemption from criminal liability through reconciliation for a previous criminal offence.

Accordingly, it is insufficient merely to establish that:

“The parties have reconciled, therefore the case must be terminated.”

It is necessary to establish the history of the application of Article 68 of the CC to the person concerned.

24. Where There Are Multiple Victims

This is a matter of fundamental importance.

Where victims A and B are involved, the rights of each victim must be taken into account when determining whether reconciliation can be applied.

Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 21 June 2001 explains that, in cases involving criminal offences that simultaneously infringe upon two or more protected interests or affect several persons, all persons who have suffered direct moral, physical, or property damage must be recognised as victims.

The Supreme Court further clarifies that if reconciliation has not been achieved with at least one of the victims, exemption from criminal liability under Article 68 of the CC is not permitted.

This is particularly significant for the legal classification under consideration.

If the charge is formulated on the basis of the aggravating element of an offence committed:

“against two or more persons,”

one of the victims cannot be disregarded when deciding whether reconciliation is applicable.

25. Example Involving Two Victims

Consider the following situation:

A strikes B.

A then strikes C.

B reconciles with A.

C refuses to reconcile.

Where a single charge under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the CC remains in place, terminating the entire criminal proceedings under Article 68 solely on the basis of the agreement with B would be unlawful.

The issue concerning C must also be resolved.

Where there are several independent episodes and the relevant procedural grounds exist, it may be possible to terminate the proceedings in respect of individual episodes for which the requirements of Article 68 have been satisfied.

The Supreme Court permits the application of Article 68 to individual offences and episodes in cases involving a plurality of criminal offences where reconciliation has been achieved in respect of those offences. Proceedings may continue in respect of episodes for which reconciliation has not been achieved or where reconciliation is excluded by law.

26. Mediation

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mediation” permits mediation in criminal proceedings involving criminal misdemeanours and minor and medium-gravity crimes, as well as in other cases provided for by law.

The fundamental principles of mediation include:

• voluntariness;
• equality of the parties;
• independence of the mediator;
• impartiality;
• non-interference;
• confidentiality.

An agreement on the settlement of a dispute or conflict is concluded in writing and, in criminal proceedings, submitted to the authority conducting the criminal proceedings.

27. “Reparation of Harm”

For the purposes of Article 68 of the CC, a formal statement that:

“We have reconciled”

is insufficient in itself.

It is necessary to establish:

1. whether reconciliation has actually taken place;
2. whether the reconciliation was voluntary;
3. whether the harm caused has been repaired;
4. whether there is any dispute between the parties regarding the terms of reconciliation.

The Supreme Court clarifies that reparation of harm must be genuine and must take place before the decision to exempt the person from criminal liability is made.

28. Where One Victim Has Received Money and Another Has Not

For example:

• B received KZT 300,000;
• C received nothing;
• B declared that reconciliation had been achieved;
• C objected to reconciliation.

The agreement with B does not, by itself, extinguish C's procedural rights.

The issue of applying Article 68 of the CC must be considered in relation to all persons recognised as victims.

29. Persons Participating in the Proceedings

The principal participants in criminal proceedings include the following.

Prosecution side:

• prosecutor;
• pre-trial investigation authority;
• victims;
• civil claimants;
• representatives of victims;
• legal representatives;
• where necessary, experts, specialists, and interpreters.

Defence side:

• suspect;
• accused person;
• defendant;
• defence counsel;
• legal representative;
• civil defendant;
• representative of the civil defendant.

The CPC expressly recognises victims, civil claimants, and their representatives as participants in criminal proceedings.

30. Status of the Victim

Every person who has directly suffered physical, moral, or property damage must be considered for recognition as a victim.

Where there are two victims, recognition as a victim must not be limited to the person who first filed a complaint with the police.

This is particularly important in relation to:

• reconciliation;
• civil claims;
• examination and questioning;
• assessment of evidence;
• determination of the amount of moral damages;
• the right to legal representation;
• the right to appeal procedural decisions.

31. Evidence to Be Established

The following matters must be established in the case:

1. the occurrence of the criminal offence;
2. the place where it occurred;
3. the time;
4. the manner in which it was committed;
5. the identity of the person who committed the acts;
6. intent;
7. the identity of each victim;
8. the specific acts committed against each victim;
9. the fact that physical pain was caused;
10. the absence of minor bodily injury or the existence of the relevant medical finding;
11. the causal connection;
12. the aggravating element of the offence being committed “against two or more persons”;
13. any other circumstances affecting criminal liability.

32. Types of Evidence

The following types of evidence are of particular importance:

• victim testimony;
• witness testimony;
• admissions;
• statements made by the accused;
• video recordings;
• audio recordings;
• CCTV footage;
• recordings made on mobile phones;
• photographs;
• medical records;
• expert reports;
• specialist opinions;
• physical evidence;
• records of investigative actions;
• electronic data.

33. Video Recordings

In cases involving battery, video recordings are often of decisive importance.

It is particularly important to establish:

• the authenticity of the recording;
• the source of the recording;
• the date;
• the time;
• whether the recording is continuous;
• the absence of editing or manipulation;
• whether the individuals can be identified;
• whether the footage corresponds to the specific location in question.

If the camera is located in a shop, entrance hall, restaurant, or car park, timely measures must be taken to preserve the footage.

34. Video Recordings Made on Mobile Phones

A video recording made by an eyewitness using a mobile phone may have evidentiary value.

However, the following matters must be examined:

• who made the recording;
• when it was made;
• the circumstances in which it was made;
• whether the file is the original;
• whether the file has been edited;
• how the file was obtained by the investigative authority.

35. Inadmissible Evidence

Article 112 of the CPC establishes rules governing the inadmissibility of evidence.

Evidence may be declared inadmissible if it was obtained through a substantial violation of the requirements of criminal procedure law, including by means of:

• violence;
• threats;
• deception;
• torture;
• a substantial violation of the procedure for conducting a procedural action;
• information obtained from an unknown or unidentifiable source.

Accordingly, the defence is entitled to challenge not only the reliability of evidence but also its admissibility.

36. Witness Testimony

A witness must provide specific factual information.

The statement:

“He beat them all”

is less precise than the following:

“I saw A strike B twice in the face with his fist. B then stepped back, after which A struck C.”

For the court, the individual identification of each act and the person against whom it was committed is of fundamental importance.

37. Medical Records

The following documents may be used in cases involving battery:

• an emergency trauma clinic certificate;
• medical records;
• medical record extracts;
• photographs of injuries;
• a forensic medical expert's report;
• emergency medical service records;
• information concerning a call for medical assistance.

However, medical documentation must be assessed together with the other evidence in the case.

38. Forensic Medical Examination

A forensic medical examination is particularly important for answering the following question:

Was bodily harm caused, and if so, what is its degree of severity?

The question of whether physical pain was caused may be established through a broader range of evidence.

If the examination does not establish the existence of minor bodily injury, this does not automatically mean that no offence under Article 109-1 of the CC occurred.

Other evidence must also be examined.

39. Evidentiary Significance of the Absence of Bodily Injuries

The absence of bodily injuries:

• does not automatically establish innocence;
• may nevertheless affect the assessment of the mechanism of the incident;
• may indicate the need for additional evidence;
• may increase the significance of witness testimony and video recordings.

For example, pushing, twisting an arm, or other forms of physical force may cause pain without producing an objectively identifiable injury.

40. Burden of Proof

In public criminal proceedings, the burden of proving the accusation rests with the prosecution.

The defendant is not required to prove their innocence.

Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 April 2018 emphasises that a conviction may be delivered only where the commission of the criminal offence, its commission by the defendant, and the defendant's guilt are established by admissible evidence. Any unresolved doubts must be interpreted in favour of the defendant.

41. Specific Features of the Aggravating Element “Against Two or More Persons”

Failure to prove the use of violence against the second person is of fundamental importance.

For example:

• the strike against B is proven;
• the strike against C is not proven.

In such circumstances, the court may not maintain the classification under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the CC merely because C's complaint is contained in the case file.

The relevant episode must be proven.

42. Possibility of Reclassification

If the aggravating element of an offence committed “against two or more persons” is not proven, but the commission of battery against one person is established, the issue of reclassifying the offence under another part of Article 109-1 of the CC may be raised, provided the relevant conditions are satisfied.

This is consistent with the general principle that the court must provide a legal assessment of the established facts rather than formally retain an aggravating element that has not been proven.

43. Where One Victim Has Suffered Minor Bodily Injury

This is a particularly complex situation.

Assume that:

• B suffered physical pain only;
• C sustained minor bodily injury.

It is not permissible to automatically classify all the acts under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the CC.

It is necessary to examine:

• whether there was a single intent;
• what acts were committed against each victim;
• whether the elements of a plurality of criminal offences are present;
• whether the harm caused was covered by a single criminal intent.

44. Where One Victim Has Suffered Bodily Injury of Moderate Severity

A similar issue arises where one of the victims has suffered more serious bodily harm.

In such circumstances, the legal classification must be based on the actual harm caused to each victim.

Article 109-1 of the CC must not be used as a universal provision covering the entire conflict.

45. Procedural Coercive Measures

Article 155 of the CPC provides for other procedural coercive measures.

These include:

• an undertaking to appear;
• compulsory attendance;
• temporary suspension from office;
• seizure of property;
• a prohibition on approaching a person.

In the cases provided for by law, the following measures may be applied to victims, witnesses, and other persons:

• an undertaking to appear;
• compulsory attendance;
• monetary penalties.

46. Compulsory Attendance

Article 157 of the CPC provides for the possibility of compulsory attendance where a person fails to appear when summoned without a valid reason.

Valid reasons include, in particular:

• illness;
• the death of a close relative;
• a natural disaster;
• other circumstances that objectively prevent the person from appearing.

Compulsory attendance may not be carried out at night.

The law also establishes specific restrictions applicable to certain categories of persons.

47. Detention

Article 128 of the CPC provides for the detention of a suspect as a procedural coercive measure.

The grounds for detention include, for example, the following circumstances:

• the person is apprehended while committing a criminal offence;
• the person is apprehended immediately after committing the offence;
• eyewitnesses directly identify the person as having committed the offence;
• obvious traces of the offence are found on the person;
• other grounds prescribed by law exist.

As a general rule, the period of detention may not exceed 72 hours.

In relation to the offence under consideration, the necessity of detention must be assessed in light of the specific circumstances and must not arise automatically merely because a person has been charged.

48. Prohibition on Approaching a Person

Where there are sufficient grounds and relevant risks, a prohibition on approaching a person may be considered.

This is particularly relevant where:

• the victims and the accused are relatives;
• they live near one another;
• they work together;
• the conflict is ongoing;
• threats have been made;
• there is a risk of repeated violence.

49. Procedural Time Limits

Several distinct time limits must be differentiated:

1. the limitation period for criminal prosecution;
2. the time limits for pre-trial investigation;
3. the procedural time limits for filing complaints;
4. the time limits for appellate review;
5. the limitation periods applicable to independent civil claims.

Confusing these legal institutions is a common procedural error.

50. Limitation Period for Criminal Liability

Under the applicable legal framework, the limitation period for a criminal misdemeanour is one year.

The current wording of Article 71 of the CC provides for the following limitation periods:

• criminal misdemeanour — 1 year;
• minor-gravity crime — 2 years;
• medium-gravity crime — 5 years;
• serious crime — 10 years;
• especially serious crime — 15 years.

Since the sanction under Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the CC does not provide for imprisonment and corresponds to the model of a criminal misdemeanour, the limitation period applicable to this offence must be assessed by reference to the relevant category of criminal misdemeanour.

51. Absence of a Civil Limitation Period for Criminal Prosecution

Terminology

The expression “limitation period for filing a claim under Article 109-1” should be used with caution.

In criminal proceedings, the applicable concept is not the civil limitation period for bringing a claim, but the limitation period for bringing a person to criminal liability.

A civil claim for compensation for harm constitutes a separate legal institution.

52. Civil Limitation Period

Under the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the “Civil Code”), the general limitation period is three years. (Zakon i Pravo)

However, Article 187 of the Civil Code establishes a special rule for claims seeking compensation for harm caused to a person's life or health: the limitation period does not apply to such claims.

Nevertheless, where a claim is brought after the expiration of the applicable period, compensation is awarded for no more than the three years preceding the filing of the claim. (Zakon i Pravo)

This rule is particularly important when bringing an independent civil claim for compensation for harm to health.

53. Reinstatement of Time Limits

The following concepts should not be confused:

• reinstatement of the civil limitation period;
• reinstatement of a procedural time limit.

The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides for the reinstatement of procedural time limits missed for reasons deemed valid by the court.

Under Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Code, an application for reinstatement must, in particular, be submitted to the court in which the relevant procedural act should have been performed. The procedural act itself must be performed simultaneously with the filing of the application. (Zakon i Pravo)

54. Judicial Practice Concerning the Reinstatement of Procedural Time Limits

Circumstances that may be considered valid grounds include:

• failure to provide proper notice;
• delayed receipt of a judicial act;
• illness;
• circumstances of an unavoidable nature;
• inability to review a judicial act in a timely manner;
• other objective circumstances.

However, the statement “I was unaware of the time limit” is not, in itself, always sufficient.

The relevant circumstances must be supported by documentary evidence.

55. Application of Article 68 Where the Limitation Period Has Expired

If the limitation period for criminal prosecution has expired, the matter must be resolved in accordance with Article 71 of the Criminal Code and the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 April 2018 explains that, upon expiration of the limitation period, the proceedings are subject to termination on the applicable legal ground.

If the defendant objects to the termination of proceedings on a non-exonerating ground, the proceedings may continue until an accusatory judgment is delivered, with the defendant being released from criminal liability. (Zakon i Pravo)

56. Court of First Instance: Key Issues

When hearing the case, the court of first instance must establish the following circumstances.

1. The incident

Were blows actually struck, or were other violent acts committed?

2. The victims

Were two or more persons victims of the alleged offence?

3. The consequences

Did each victim experience physical pain?

4. Harm to health

Was minor or more serious harm to health caused?

5. The offender

Did the person meet the minimum age requirement for criminal liability, and was the person legally sane?

6. Guilt

Was the conduct intentional?

7. Aggravating element

Has the specific element of the offence being committed against two or more persons been proven?

8. Circumstances affecting criminal liability

Are there grounds for terminating the proceedings, releasing the person from criminal liability, applying Article 68 of the Criminal Code, or taking other relevant measures?

57. First-Instance Judicial Practice: Typical Evidentiary Issues

In practice, the following evidentiary issues are particularly important in cases of this nature:

• inconsistencies between the victims' statements;
• changes in testimony;
• witnesses being under the influence of alcohol;
• absence of video recordings;
• absence of eyewitnesses;
• delayed attendance at a medical facility;
• absence of objectively identifiable injuries;
• a mutual altercation;
• the existence of a counter-complaint.

The court must assess the evidence in its entirety.

58. Mutual Fight

The fact that a fight was mutual does not automatically mean that the elements of a criminal offence are absent.

It is necessary to determine:

• who initiated the conflict;
• who first resorted to violence;
• whether the attack continued;
• whether the circumstances constituted necessary self-defence;
• whether the limits of necessary self-defence were exceeded;
• whether each participant independently engaged in unlawful violence.

If both participants intentionally caused physical pain to one another, the actions of each participant may be subject to a separate criminal-law assessment.

59. Necessary Self-Defence

In defending against an allegation of battery, Article 32 of the Criminal Code, which governs necessary self-defence, must be examined.

The mere fact that a person struck another person does not necessarily mean that the conduct was unlawful.

If the person was defending against an actual socially dangerous attack, the limits of the defence must be established.

Accordingly, the question:

“Who struck the first blow?”

may be of decisive importance.

60. Appellate Court

The appellate court reviews the legality and validity of a judicial act within the scope of its statutory powers.

In an appeal concerning an offence under subparagraph 1) of paragraph 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code, the following grounds may be particularly significant:

• failure to prove the existence of a second victim;
• failure to prove that physical pain was caused;
• improper assessment of medical records;
• inconsistencies in testimony;
• violations of the rules governing the admissibility of evidence;
• incorrect legal classification of the conduct;
• failure to consider circumstances relating to reconciliation;
• violation of the right to defence;
• violations of the rules governing the examination of evidence;
• an unjustified refusal to grant a motion.

61. Appellate Practice: The Qualifying Element

If the court of first instance states:

“Since several people were present at the scene, the offence should be considered to have been committed against two or more persons,”

such reasoning is insufficient.

It must be established that the violent acts were committed specifically against each individual, rather than merely in the presence of several people.

There is a fundamental distinction between:

two victims

and

one victim and several eyewitnesses.

62. Supreme Court Practice

The publicly available database on zakonpravo.kz does not appear to contain a sufficient body of published Supreme Court decisions directly and comprehensively examining subparagraph 1) of paragraph 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code.

Accordingly, when preparing a legal opinion, it is impermissible to invent case numbers or attribute a position on a specific case to the Supreme Court where no such judicial act has been identified.

For this offence, the most relevant guidance may be drawn from the Supreme Court's official legal positions on related matters, including:

1. private and public prosecution;
2. reconciliation;
3. civil claims;
4. evidence;
5. distinguishing battery from hooliganism;
6. requirements applicable to an accusatory judgment.

63. Regulatory Resolution on Private Prosecution

The Regulatory Resolution No. 13 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 25 December 2006, On Judicial Practice in Cases of Private Prosecution, remains important for understanding the procedural framework governing private prosecution. (Zakon i Pravo)

However, subparagraph 1) of paragraph 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code cannot automatically be subjected to the procedure applicable to private prosecution, because Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code classifies offences under paragraph 2 of Article 109-1 as offences subject to public prosecution.

This is precisely why the current version of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be considered rather than relying on older judicial practice based on previous legislation.

64. Regulatory Resolution on Civil Claims in Criminal Proceedings

The Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 June 2005, On the Consideration of Civil Claims in Criminal Proceedings, is of considerable importance.

According to the Supreme Court's explanations, a civil claim may be filed from the commencement of pre-trial investigation until the conclusion of the judicial investigation.

The Supreme Court also notes that the burden of proving a civil claim in private prosecution cases has certain procedural peculiarities. (Zakon i Pravo)

In public prosecution proceedings under subparagraph 1) of paragraph 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code, the general rules governing the proof of civil claims in criminal proceedings must be applied.

65. Supreme Court Practice Concerning Civil Claims and Legal Representation Expenses

A published Supreme Court decision in a civil case concerning compensation for moral harm and expenses associated with criminal proceedings is illustrative.

In that case, the Supreme Court examined whether expenses incurred for legal representation in criminal proceedings could be claimed separately in civil proceedings.

This example demonstrates the practical importance of submitting the relevant claims in a timely manner within the criminal proceedings themselves. (Zakon i Pravo)

Accordingly, the victim should determine in advance which expenses are being claimed for reimbursement, including:

• medical treatment;
• medication;
• expert examinations;
• transportation;
• legal representation;
• moral harm;
• other directly incurred losses.

66. Supreme Court Regulatory Resolution on Judicial Judgments

The Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 April 2018, On the Judicial Judgment, is of fundamental importance.

A court may not deliver an accusatory judgment based solely on assumptions.

The following must be established:

• the occurrence of the incident;
• the identity of the person who committed the offence;
• guilt;
• the sufficiency of the evidence;
• the admissibility of the evidence;
• the absence of unresolved doubts that cannot be eliminated.

The Supreme Court expressly emphasises that unresolved doubts must be interpreted in favour of the defendant. (ZakonPravo Почта)

67. Separate Judicial Ruling

Where violations of the law, or the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of an offence, are identified during criminal proceedings, the court may use the mechanism of issuing a separate judicial ruling.

The Regulatory Resolution No. 11 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 19 December 2003 addresses the practice of courts issuing separate rulings in criminal cases. (Zakon i Pravo)

68. International Standards

The following international instrument is particularly relevant to cases involving battery.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 14 guarantees:

• equality before the courts;
• a competent court;
• an independent court;
• an impartial court;
• a tribunal established by law;
• a fair and public hearing. (Zakon i Pravo)

Article 15 establishes the principle of legality in criminal liability.

69. Prohibition of Cruel Treatment

Kazakhstan is a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture.

Article 16 of the Convention requires the prevention of other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the scope specified by the Convention. (Zakon i Pravo)

Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 28 December 2009 directly links the domestic application of criminal law with the requirements of the Convention against Torture. It also emphasises the need to provide a legal assessment of acts involving cruel or degrading treatment. (Zakon i Pravo)

70. The Principle of a Fair Trial

The following principles must be observed when considering the case:

• the presumption of innocence;
• adversarial proceedings;
• equality of the parties;
• the right to defence;
• the right to examine witnesses;
• the right to present evidence;
• the right to submit motions;
• the right to appeal judicial acts.

These guarantees are consistent with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (Zakon i Pravo)

71. Principal Legislative and Regulatory Acts

For practical work involving subparagraph 1) of paragraph 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code, the following body of legislation is recommended.

I. Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Key provisions include:

• the right to judicial protection;
• equality before the law and the courts;
• personal liberty;
• guarantees of human rights;
• judicial power;
• principles of judicial proceedings.

II. Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Key provisions include:

• Article 3 — principal definitions;
• Article 10 — the concept of a criminal offence;
• Article 15 — the age of criminal liability;
• Article 32 — complicity in a criminal offence;
• Article 39 and subsequent provisions — punishment;
• Article 68 — exemption from criminal liability in connection with reconciliation;
• Article 71 — limitation periods;
• Article 108-1 — intentional infliction of minor harm to health;
• Article 109-1 — battery;
• Article 110 — torture;
• Article 293 — hooliganism;
• other provisions of the Special Part, depending on the factual circumstances.

72. Criminal Procedure Code

The following provisions are of particular importance:

• Article 7 — principal definitions;
• Article 32 — types of prosecution;
• Article 35 — grounds for termination of criminal proceedings;
• Article 36 — release from criminal liability;
• Article 43 — consolidation of criminal cases;
• Article 64 — suspect;
• Article 71 — victim;
• Article 72 — private prosecutor;
• Article 82 and subsequent provisions — witness;
• Article 112 — inadmissibility of evidence;
• Article 113 — circumstances subject to proof;
• Article 121 — proof of the nature and amount of harm;
• Article 128 — detention;
• Articles 155–157 — measures of procedural compulsion;
• Article 166 — civil claim;
• Article 170 — determination of a civil claim;
• Article 306 — jurisdiction;
• provisions governing appellate proceedings;
• Articles 327, 343 and subsequent provisions — judicial examination of a criminal case;
• Articles 390 and 391 — issues to be resolved when delivering a judgment.

73. Tax Code of 2025

The new Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, dated 18 July 2025, No. 214-VIII, has been in force since 1 January 2026.

Article 665, which governs state duty rates in courts, is relevant to court expenses.

The basic state duty rate for non-property claims is 0.5 monthly calculation indices (MCI), while for property claims brought by individuals it is 1% of the claim amount, subject to the applicable statutory maximum and any special provisions providing otherwise. (Zakon i Pravo)

74. Civil Code

Claims for compensation for harm are governed, among other provisions, by:

• general provisions on obligations arising from the infliction of harm;
• Article 917 — general grounds for compensation for harm;
• Article 951 — moral harm;
• Article 952 — procedure for compensating moral harm;
• Article 178 — general limitation period;
• Article 187 — claims to which the limitation period does not apply.

75. Law on Mediation

The principal legislative act is the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 28 January 2011, No. 401-IV, “On Mediation.”

The following provisions are particularly important:

• Article 1 — scope of application;
• Article 3 — objectives and tasks of mediation;
• Article 4 — principles of mediation;
• Article 10 — rights and obligations of the mediator;
• Article 17 — mediation procedure;
• Article 21 — mediation agreement;
• Article 27 — agreement on settlement of the dispute.

(Zakon i Pravo)

76. Law on Forensic Expert Activities

Where questions arise concerning the nature of bodily injuries, the legislation governing forensic expert activities and the applicable rules for conducting forensic examinations must be applied.

Materials published on zakonpravo.kz refer to the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Forensic Expert Activities” and the Rules for the Organisation and Conduct of Forensic Examinations and Studies in Forensic Examination Bodies, approved by Order No. 484 of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 27 April 2017. (Zakon i Pravo)

When preparing a procedural document, the version of the relevant order in force on the date the examination is appointed must be verified.

77. Subordinate Legislation and Judicial Regulatory Acts

The following acts are of particular importance:

1. Regulatory Resolution No. 3 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12 January 2009, On Judicial Practice in Hooliganism Cases. (Zakon i Pravo)
2. Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 21 June 2001, concerning judicial practice in the application of Article 68 of the Criminal Code. (Zakon i Pravo)
3. Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 June 2005, On the Consideration of Civil Claims in Criminal Proceedings. (Zakon i Pravo)
4. Regulatory Resolution No. 13 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 25 December 2006, On Judicial Practice in Cases of Private Prosecution. (Zakon и Право)
5. Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 28 December 2009, concerning personal liberty, human dignity, torture and cruel treatment. (Zakon i Pravo)
6. Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 April 2018, On Judicial Judgments. (ZakonPravo Почта)
7. Regulatory Resolution No. 11 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 19 December 2003, concerning the practice of issuing separate judicial rulings in criminal cases. (Zakon i Pravo)

78. Practical Framework for Proving the Prosecution Case

For proceedings under subparagraph 1) of paragraph 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code, it is useful to prepare an evidentiary matrix.

79. Practical Framework for the Defence

The defence may examine the prosecution case along the following lines.

Block 1. Second victim

Has it been proven that the second person was actually subjected to violence?

Block 2. Physical pain

Is there evidence establishing that physical pain was caused?

Block 3. Medical criterion

Was minor harm to health caused?

Block 4. Causation

Was the physical pain caused by the accused's actions?

Block 5. Intent

Has the intentional nature of the conduct been established?

Block 6. Necessary self-defence

Was the accused subjected to an attack?

Block 7. Reliability

Are the victims' statements consistent with one another?

Block 8. Admissibility

Was the evidence obtained lawfully?

Block 9. Legal classification

Are there grounds for classifying the conduct under a different provision?

Block 10. Reconciliation

Are there legal grounds for applying Article 68 of the Criminal Code?

80. Example No. 1 — Classification Under Subparagraph 1) of Paragraph 2 of Article 109-1

During a conflict, Person A:

• struck Person B once;
• pushed Person C;
• Persons B and C stated that they had experienced physical pain;
• a forensic medical examination found no minor harm to health;
• video footage confirms the actions.

If the intentional nature of the conduct and the remaining elements of the offence are proven, there is a factual basis for classifying the conduct under subparagraph 1) of paragraph 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code.

81. Example No. 2 — Only One Victim

A struck B five times.

C was nearby and witnessed the entire incident.

C was not subjected to any physical violence.

The qualifying element of “against two or more persons” is absent.

C is a witness, not a second victim.

82. Example No. 3 — The Existence of a Second Victim Has Not Been Proven

A states:

“I did not hit anyone.”

B states:

“A hit me.”

C did not mention being struck in the initial complaint but reported several months later that C had also been beaten.

There is no video recording.

There is no medical evidence.

In such circumstances, the evidentiary situation requires particularly careful assessment. The fact that testimony was changed at a later stage does not automatically mean that it is false; however, its reliability and credibility must be verified.

83. Example No. 4 — Three Victims

A committed the following acts:

• struck B once;
• struck C once;
• struck D once.

If all three individuals confirm that they experienced physical pain, objective evidence is available, and no minor harm to health was caused, the number of victims exceeds the statutory minimum threshold.

However, provided that there are no grounds for a different legal classification, the conduct is classified under one provision: subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

84. Example No. 5 — One Victim and a Hooligan Motive

A struck B on the street without any apparent reason.

There were no other victims.

This fact alone does not permit the conduct to be classified under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code.

At the same time, the possibility of applying other criminal-law provisions, including the provision on hooliganism, may arise depending on the specific circumstances.

85. Example No. 6 — A Personal Conflict Between Several Individuals

A had a dispute with B and C concerning a property-related matter.

During the conflict, A struck both individuals.

The existence of a personal motive does not, in itself, preclude the application of subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code.

On the contrary, the case law of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan indicates the need to distinguish such conflicts from hooliganism.

Source: Regulatory Resolution No. 3 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12 January 2009, On Judicial Practice in Cases of Hooliganism.

Read the relevant legal material on zakonpravo.kz.

86. Example No. 7 — Reconciliation with One Victim

A is accused of committing battery against B and C.

B signed a mediation settlement agreement.

C refused to reconcile.

The entire criminal proceedings cannot be terminated solely on the basis of the agreement with B, since C retains the rights of an independent victim.

The Supreme Court's position on the application of Article 68 of the Criminal Code is based on the need for reconciliation with the relevant victims.

Source: Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 21 June 2001, On Judicial Practice in Applying Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Read the relevant legal material on zakonpravo.kz.

87. Example No. 8 — Previous Application of Article 68

A was previously released from criminal liability under Article 68 of the Criminal Code on the grounds of reconciliation.

A subsequently committed a new criminal offence under Article 109-1 within the relevant statutory period.

The possibility of reconciliation in the new case must be examined in light of the specific restriction established by subparagraph 9) of Part 4 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code.

Source: Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Release from Criminal Liability in Connection with Reconciliation.

Read the relevant legal material on zakonpravo.kz.

88. Example No. 9 — Civil Claim

B seeks compensation for the following:

• KZT 200,000 for medical treatment expenses;
• KZT 100,000 for medication expenses;
• KZT 1,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

Such a claim may be brought within the criminal proceedings, provided that a causal link exists between the criminal offence and the damage claimed.

Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan expressly provides for the recovery of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as expenses associated with participation in criminal proceedings.

Source: Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Civil Claims Considered in Criminal Proceedings.

Read the relevant legal material on zakonpravo.kz.

89. Non-Pecuniary Damage

Battery infringes upon the following interests:

• health;
• bodily integrity;
• dignity;
• personal security.

Accordingly, a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage constitutes an independent civil-law claim that may be connected with the criminal proceedings.

The amount of compensation is not determined automatically by the number of blows.

The court considers the totality of the circumstances, including:

• the nature of the violation;
• the degree of physical suffering;
• emotional and psychological distress;
• the duration of the consequences;
• the impact on the victim's ordinary life;
• the form of guilt;
• other relevant circumstances.

90. Supreme Court Case Law on Non-Pecuniary Damage

The Supreme Court's regulatory guidance concerning civil claims requires objective and subjective circumstances to be taken into account when determining the amount of compensation.

Published judicial materials of the Supreme Court also emphasise the need to prove that the claimed expenses were actually incurred and that the relevant expenses were connected with participation in the criminal proceedings.

Source: Judicial material concerning the review of a judicial decision on compensation for non-pecuniary damage and losses.

Read the relevant legal material on zakonpravo.kz.

91. Enforcement Stage

If the court upholds a civil claim and orders the payment of money, the relevant part of the judicial act is subject to enforcement in accordance with the legislation governing enforcement proceedings.

In this regard, a criminal judgment may simultaneously address:

• the finding of guilt;
• the sentence imposed;
• the decision on the civil claim;
• procedural costs;
• the disposition of physical evidence;
• other matters prescribed by law.

92. Particular Attention to the Formulation of the Charge

When applying subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code, the charge should be formulated as specifically as possible.

For example:

“...intentionally struck citizen A once with a fist in the facial area, thereby causing physical pain, and subsequently intentionally struck citizen B once with a fist in the chest area, thereby causing physical pain, while no minor harm to health was caused to either victim...”

This formulation is considerably more precise than the general statement:

“...committed battery against two citizens.”

93. Why Detailed Formulation of the Charge Matters

A detailed formulation makes it possible to verify each element individually:

• Who?
• Against whom?
• When?
• Where?
• By what means?
• How many times?
• What consequences resulted?
• What evidence substantiates the allegation?
• What justifies the application of the qualifying element?

If even one of these elements remains insufficiently specified, the defence has grounds to raise the issue of the lack of sufficient particularisation of the charge.

94. A Systematic Legal Position for the Defence

In cases of this category, the defence should not be based solely on the general assertion:

“I did not hit anyone.”

Instead, the defence should address each element separately.

First: The occurrence of the alleged incident has not been proven.

Second: The act against the second individual has not been proven.

Third: The infliction of physical pain has not been proven.

Fourth: The causal link has not been established.

Fifth: The medical evidence does not substantiate the alleged harm.

Sixth: The evidence was obtained in violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Seventh: There are contradictions in the evidence.

Eighth: The legal classification is incorrect.

95. A Systematic Position for the Victim

Conversely, the victim's side should seek to individualise the evidence as fully as possible in relation to each victim.

For Victim No. 1:

• date;
• time;
• location;
• specific act;
• witness;
• video recording;
• medical documents;
• consequences.

For Victim No. 2:

The same structure should be followed.

This substantially strengthens the evidentiary basis for establishing the qualifying element of committing the acts against two or more persons.

96. Supreme Court Case Law — Final Analysis

Supreme Court

The principal applicable legal positions are as follows:

• the legal classification must correspond to the circumstances actually proven;
• a conviction cannot be based on circumstances where unresolved doubts remain;
• release from criminal liability on the grounds of reconciliation requires actual reparation of the harm caused;
• where there are several victims, the rights of each must be taken into account;
• a personal conflict should not automatically be classified as hooliganism;
• a civil claim may be considered within criminal proceedings;
• procedural violations may render evidence inadmissible.

Source: Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court concerning judicial practice in applying Article 68 of the Criminal Code.

Read the relevant legal material on zakonpravo.kz.

Appellate Instance

The principal errors that may be subject to appellate review include:

• incorrect legal classification;
• failure to prove the existence of a second victim;
• improper assessment of the evidence;
• failure to take reconciliation into account;
• violation of the right to defence;
• improper determination of the civil claim;
• lack of justification for the sentence imposed.

Court of First Instance

The primary task is to establish the factual circumstances of the incident and examine every mandatory element of the offence.

97. Principal Errors in Law Enforcement Practice

The following errors are particularly serious.

Error No. 1

Treating a witness to the incident as a second victim.

Error No. 2

Treating every bodily injury as minor harm to health.

Error No. 3

Treating the absence of visible injuries as proof that no battery occurred.

Error No. 4

Automatically classifying a mass fight as hooliganism.

Error No. 5

Applying the private-prosecution procedure to subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code.

Error No. 6

Terminating the entire case under Article 68 after reconciliation with only one of two victims.

Error No. 7

Failing to verify whether the accused had previously been released from criminal liability under Article 68.

Error No. 8

Failing to particularise the acts committed against each victim.

Error No. 9

Confusing the limitation period for criminal prosecution with the civil limitation period for bringing a claim.

Error No. 10

Using evidence obtained through substantial violations of the Criminal Procedure Code.

98. The Overall Legal Framework

For the conduct to be classified under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the following elements must be established:

Intentional battery or other violent acts → infliction of physical pain → absence of minor harm to health → commission of the acts against two or more persons.

In this regard:

Two witnesses ≠ two victims;

Two persons present at the scene ≠ two victims;

Two complaints ≠ automatic proof of two separate incidents;

Two victims ≠ automatic classification as hooliganism;

Reconciliation with one victim ≠ automatic termination of the entire criminal proceedings;

Absence of visible injuries ≠ automatic absence of the elements of the offence;

A medical certificate ≠ automatic proof or disproof of every element of the offence.

99. Practical Table for Legal Classification

100. List of Key Legal Sources on zakonpravo.kz

Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

• Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code — “Battery”
• Article 68 of the Criminal Code — Release from Criminal Liability in Connection with Reconciliation
• Material on Release from Criminal Liability upon Expiry of the Limitation Period

Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

• Article 32 — Cases of Private, Private-Public and Public Prosecution
• Article 112 — Factual Data That Are Inadmissible as Evidence
• Article 128 — Grounds for Detention
• Article 155 — Grounds for Applying Other Procedural Coercive Measures
• Article 157 — Compulsory Appearance
• Article 166 — Civil Claims Considered in Criminal Proceedings
• Article 306 — Criminal Cases Within the Jurisdiction of District and Equivalent Courts

Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan

• Regulatory Resolution No. 3 of 12 January 2009 — On Judicial Practice in Cases of Hooliganism
• Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of 21 June 2001 — On Judicial Practice in Applying Article 68 of the Criminal Code
• Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of 20 June 2005 — On the Consideration of Civil Claims in Criminal Proceedings
• Regulatory Resolution No. 13 of 25 December 2006 — On Judicial Practice in Private-Prosecution Cases
• Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of 28 December 2009 — On the Application of Criminal and Criminal Procedure Legislation Concerning Personal Liberty, Human Dignity, and the Prevention of Torture, Violence and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
• Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of 20 April 2018 — On the Judicial Judgment

Civil Legislation

• Article 178 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Limitation Periods
• Article 187 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Claims Not Subject to Limitation Periods

Mediation

• Article 1 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mediation” — Scope of Application
• Article 4 — Principles of Mediation
• Article 17 — Procedure and Methods for Conducting Mediation
• Article 27 — Agreement on the Settlement of a Dispute or Conflict

State Duty

• Article 665 of the New Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — State Duty Rates in Courts

International Instruments

• Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• Article 16 of the United Nations Convention against Torture

101. Final Conclusion

Subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes a qualified form of battery in which the decisive element is the commission of violent acts against two or more persons.

To apply this provision, it is insufficient merely to establish that a conflict occurred or that several people were present at the scene. It is necessary to prove that specific acts of violence were committed against each of at least two victims, that each victim experienced physical pain, and that no minor harm to health was caused. If the actual circumstances require the application of another provision of the Criminal Code, the appropriate legal classification must be determined separately.

From a procedural perspective, this provision has a particularly important feature: it falls under public prosecution, because Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code includes Part 1 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code among offences subject to private-public prosecution but does not include Part 2 of Article 109-1. Consequently, the initiation and continuation of criminal prosecution do not depend exclusively on the wishes of the victim.

Nevertheless, reconciliation remains legally relevant under Article 68 of the Criminal Code, provided that the statutory conditions are satisfied. Where there are several victims, the rights of each must be taken into account. According to the Supreme Court's position, where the proceedings have not been separated into independent incidents, the absence of reconciliation with even one victim may prevent the application of reconciliation as a ground for release from criminal liability in respect of the entire criminal offence.

From the perspective of legal representation and defence in court, four principal groups of issues are central:

1. Whether the existence of each victim has been proven;
2. Whether the infliction of physical pain on each victim has been proven;
3. Whether battery has been properly distinguished from minor harm to health, torture and hooliganism;
4. Whether the evidence was obtained lawfully and is sufficient.

These four areas should form the foundation of a professional legal analysis of a criminal case under subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

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. 

Constitution Law Code Standard Decree Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases Declaration Decree Order Resolution Decision Report Conclusion Statement Conclusion Convention Contract Memorandum Methodology Norms Note Rules Program Charter Charter Article Commentary Resolution Regulations Protocol Draft Program Rules Messages