Comment to article 784. Evaluation of evidence  The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences  

     1. Evaluation of evidence is a logical mental activity consisting in the analysis and synthesis of evidence and culminating in a conclusion about the relevance, admissibility, reliability and significance of individual evidence and the sufficiency of their totality to justify the decision.

     2. A judge, body (official) conducting proceedings on an administrative offense case shall evaluate evidence according to their inner conviction based on a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the evidence in its entirety, guided by the law and conscience. No evidence has a pre-established validity.

     3. Each piece of evidence is subject to assessment in terms of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together is sufficient to resolve the case.

     4. Evidence is considered relevant if it is factual data that confirms, refutes, or calls into question conclusions about the existence of circumstances relevant to the case.

     5. Evidence is recognized as admissible if it is obtained in accordance with the procedure provided for by this Code.

     6. A proof is considered reliable if, as a result of verification, it turns out that it corresponds to reality.

     7. The totality of evidence is considered sufficient to resolve a case if all relevant admissible and reliable evidence has been collected that indisputably establishes the truth about each and every one of the circumstances to be proved.

     Part 1. Evaluation of evidence is the final stage in proving. According to Article 784 of the Administrative Code, it is a logical mental activity consisting in the analysis and synthesis of evidence and culminating in a conclusion about the relevance, admissibility, reliability and significance of individual evidence and the sufficiency of their totality to justify the decision.  

     Part 2. The subjects of evidence assessment are only those participants in the process who are responsible for the proceedings in the case and are competent to make decisions on it. These are the judge, the body (officials) whose activities are provided for in Chapter 36 of the Administrative Code.  

     Part 3. Evaluation of evidence takes place at all stages of administrative proceedings, in accordance with the general requirements established by law, provided for in Article 784 of the Administrative Code and which are uniform for all stages.  

     The analysis of a proof is a comprehensive study of it and consists in the fact that the proof is divided into its component parts, which are checked for their consistency. For example, the testimony of a witness is considered in the aspect of: whether the witness correctly perceived the observed fact, whether there were objective or subjective factors that distort or hinder the correct understanding of what was observed; whether what he saw was reproduced correctly, whether there are contradictions between the reported information, etc.  

     Synthesis of evidence is the opposite method, which consists in the fact that several previously collected proofs are consolidated and combined with each other, resulting in a general picture of the act. For example, the testimony of the victim, the testimony of the witness and the expert opinion confirm the same fact.

     Part 4. Each piece of evidence is subject to evaluation according to the criteria of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together is sufficient to resolve the case.  

     Evidence is considered relevant if it is factual data that confirms, refutes, or calls into question conclusions about circumstances relevant to the case. Determining the relevance of evidence means establishing its objective relationship with the circumstances that are part of the subject of evidence and relevant to the case.  

     Part 5. Evidence obtained in accordance with the procedure established by the Administrative Code and from sources provided for by law is considered admissible. The sources of obtaining "factual data" are the person against whom proceedings on an administrative offense are being conducted, the victim, the witness, the specialist, the expert. In relation to each source of obtaining "factual data", the law establishes the procedure for their collection (survey, inspection, examination, etc.).

     Evidence is considered inadmissible if it is obtained in violation of the constitutional rights and freedoms of a citizen or the requirements of the Administrative Code related to the deprivation or restriction of the rights of participants in the administrative process or violation of other rules of the administrative process. The legislator highlights the grounds for recognizing evidence as inadmissible, which are fixed in the norms of art. 765 of the Administrative Code.

     Part 6. Evidence is considered reliable if it corresponds to reality. Factual data is considered reliable if, during the comparison, it was confirmed by other evidence collected in the case. Only reliable evidence can be used as the basis for procedural decisions taken by the court, the body (official) in charge of the administrative offense case.

     Part 7. Evidence is considered sufficient when its totality makes it possible to establish the circumstances to be proved in an administrative offense case and resolve the case.

     A judge, an authority (official) conducting proceedings on an administrative offense case, evaluates evidence according to their inner conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the evidence in its entirety, guided by the law and conscience. No evidence has a pre-established validity.

     An internal belief as a cognitive result is a belief in establishing (not establishing) any factual circumstances. This belief should be based on the totality of the evidence collected in the case, objectively examined. In the psychological aspect, inner conviction is a feeling of confidence in the validity of one's conclusions about the circumstances of a case.  

     Objective examination of evidence is the absence of interest of the court, body (official) in the resolved case, bias and prejudice in the evaluation of evidence. The lack of interest in the outcome of the case under consideration allows us to consider the evidence comprehensively: both from the prosecution and from the defense. Comprehensiveness means taking into account the arguments of all the persons involved in the case, examining and evaluating evidence from different perspectives of the persons involved. A full review of evidence is the availability of evidence sufficient to conclude a case and an assessment of the totality of evidence available in the case.  

     In assessing evidence, in some cases the law requires that evidence be declared inadmissible if certain rules are violated, in others it provides only general guidelines for evaluating evidence (for example, to assess its relevance or to assess the sufficiency of evidence to conclude that guilt has been proven). When forming a belief, conscience acts as an internal criterion for evaluating one's activities as impartial and fair.

     The person who evaluates the evidence is not bound by the assessment of evidence given by other persons or authorities at previous stages of the process or within this stage. A person evaluates evidence independently of outside influence, based on the totality of available evidence, each of which has no pre-determined force, based on a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the evidence available in the case.  

Scientific and practical commentary to the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences (article-by-article) from the Author's team:

     Bachurin Sergey Nikolaevich, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – chapter 48 (co-authored with E.M. Khakimov);

     Gabdualiev Mereke Trekovich, Candidate of Law – Chapters 11, 21, 22, 23;

     Zhusipbekova Ainur Maratovna, M.yu.n. – chapter 13 (co-authored with Karpekin A.V.); chapters 33, 39 (co-authored with Seitzhanov O.T.);  

     Alexander Vladimirovich Karpekin, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – chapter 13 (in collaboration with A.M. Zhusipbekova);

     Korneychuk Sergey Vasilyevich – chapters 2; chapter 6 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov, E.M. Khakimov); chapter 8; chapter 25 (co-authored with E.M. Khakimov); articles 457-470, 488, 488-1, 491-506; chapters 28, 30, 52;

     Ilya Petrovich Koryakin, Doctor of Law, Professor – Chapter 49;

     Kisykova Gulnara Bauyrzhanovna, Candidate of Law – chapter 20;

     Omarova Botagoz Akimgereevna, Candidate of Law – chapters 17; chapter 18 (co-authored with B.A. Parmankulova); chapters 26, 31; chapter 32 (co-authored with B.A. Parmankulova);

     Parmankulova Bayan Askhanbaevna – chapter 18 (co-authored with Omarova B.A.); chapters 19, 32 (co-authored with Omarova B.A.); chapter 43 (co-authored with Tukiev A.S.);  

     Podoprigora Roman Anatolyevich, Doctor of Law, Professor - Chapter 24, articles 489, 489-1, 490;

     Porokhov Evgeny Viktorovich, Doctor of Law – Chapters 14, 15, 16, 29, articles 471-475;

     Seitzhanov Olzhas Temirzhanovich, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor, – chapter 4; chapter 5 (co-authored with E. M. Khakimov); chapter 6 (co-authored with S.V. Korneychuk, E.M. Khakimov); chapter 9; chapter 10 (co-authored with B.E. Shaimerdenov, V.V. Filin); chapter 33 (co-authored with Zhusipbekova A.M.); chapter 36 (co-authored with Shaimerdenov B.E.); chapter 39 (co-authored with Zhusipbekova A.M.);

     Smyshlyaev Alexander Sergeevich, PhD. – chapters 38, 40, 42, 43-1 (co-authored with A.S. Tukiev); chapter 44;

     Aslan Sultanovich Tukiev - Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – chapters 1, 3, 35; chapters 38, 40, 42, (co-authored with A.S. Smyshlyaev); chapter 43 (co-authored with B.A. Parmankulova); chapter 43-1 (co-authored with A.S. Smyshlyaev); chapter 44-1 (co-authored with Shipp D.A.); chapter 45; 46 (co-authored with Shipp D.A.); chapter 47;  

Filin Vladimir Vladimirovich, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor – Chapter 10 (in collaboration with O.T. Seitzhanov, B.E. Shaimerdenov);  

     Yerzhan Maratovich Khakimov, M.yu.n. – chapter 5 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov); chapter 6 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov, S.V. Korneychuk); chapter 7; chapter 25 (co-authored with S.V. Korneychuk); chapters 34, 41; chapter 48 (co-authored with S.N. Bachurin); chapter 53;

     Shaimerdenov Bolat Yerkenovich, M.yu.n., – chapter 10 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov, V.V. Filin); chapter 12; articles 476-487, 507-509; chapter 36 (co-authored with O.T. Seitzhanov); chapters 37, 50, 51.  

     Shipp Denis Alekseevich – chapters 44-1, 46 (in collaboration with A.S. Tukiev).

Date of amendment of the act:  01.01.2020 Date of adoption of the act:  01.01.2020 Place of acceptance:  100050000000 Authority that adopted the act: 103001000000 Region of operation:  100000000000 NPA registration number assigned by the regulatory body:  5 Status of the act:  new Sphere of legal relations:  029000000000 / 028000000000 / 029002000000 / 028004000000 / 029001000000 / 026000000000 / 001000000000 / 001008000000 / 030000000000 The form of the act:  COMM / CODE Legal force:  1900 Language of the Act:  rus  

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