Commentary on Article 14. Recidivism of Criminal Offenses, Dangerous Recidivism of Criminal Offenses of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Recidivism of criminal offenses shall be recognized as the commission by a person of a serious crime if that person was previously sentenced to imprisonment for committing a serious crime.
Dangerous recidivism of criminal offenses shall be recognized as the commission by a person of:
a serious crime, if that person was previously sentenced to imprisonment twice for committing a serious crime or was sentenced for committing an especially serious crime;
an especially serious crime, if that person was previously sentenced to imprisonment for committing a serious or especially serious crime.
Convictions for crimes committed by a person under the age of eighteen, as well as convictions that have been expunged or removed in accordance with the procedure established by this Code, shall not be taken into account when recognizing recidivism of criminal offenses and dangerous recidivism of criminal offenses.
Recidivism of criminal offenses and dangerous recidivism of criminal offenses entail a more severe punishment on the grounds and within the limits provided for by this Code.
Recidivism of criminal offenses is a type of multiplicity of criminal offenses, alongside repeated commission and concurrence of criminal offenses.
In accordance with Article 14 of the Criminal Code, recidivism of criminal offenses shall be recognized as the commission by a person of a serious crime if that person was previously sentenced to imprisonment for committing a serious crime. Dangerous recidivism of criminal offenses shall be recognized as the commission by a person of: a serious crime, if that person was previously sentenced to imprisonment twice for committing a serious crime or was sentenced for committing an especially serious crime; an especially serious crime, if that person was previously sentenced to imprisonment for committing a serious or especially serious crime. “Consideration of the issue of whether the defendant has recidivism of criminal offenses and adoption of the relevant decision,” as stated in paragraph 2 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 25, 2007, “On the Application by Courts of Legislation on Recidivism of Criminal Offenses,” “is not a right but an obligation of the court. Therefore, in all cases where the grounds provided for by law exist, the court must set out the relevant motives and grounds in the descriptive and reasoning part of the judgment, indicating convictions that have not been removed or expunged, the severity of the previous and newly committed crimes, and in the operative part of the judgment set out the decision recognizing the relevant type of recidivism of criminal offenses, with reference to the relevant paragraph and part of Article 14 of the Criminal Code.
If the court, while setting out in the reasoning part of the judgment the grounds for recognizing recidivism, does not indicate in the operative part of the judgment the decision recognizing the relevant type of recidivism in the defendant’s actions, it shall be considered that recidivism of criminal offenses has not been recognized by the court in that judgment.”
Paragraph 30 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 20, 2018, “On the Judicial Judgment,” also emphasizes that the grounds for recognizing recidivism of criminal offenses established during the main court proceedings shall be set out in the reasoning part of the judgment. The type of recidivism shall be reflected in the operative part of the judgment.
Compared with the criminal legislation previously in force, the provisions on recidivism of criminal offenses in Article 14 of the 2014 Criminal Code have undergone substantial changes. The threshold for recognizing recidivism has been significantly raised. Recidivism now consists only of crimes classified as serious or especially serious. Thus, the commission by a person of an intentional minor or medium-gravity crime, where that person has a conviction for another intentional crime (of any category), does not constitute recidivism under any circumstances.
Taking into account the increase in the threshold for recognizing recidivism and, accordingly, the degree of its public danger, the number of types of recidivism has been reduced to two: simple and dangerous. At the same time, compared with the previously applicable Criminal Code, the concept of simple recidivism is comparable, in terms of the degree of public danger, to dangerous recidivism, while the concept of dangerous recidivism is comparable to especially dangerous recidivism.
Thus, from the perspective of the previously applicable 1997 Criminal Code, the legal construction that was formerly referred to as simple recidivism has been excluded from the scope of criminal law. In doing so, the legislator narrowed the scope of recidivism of criminal offenses, retaining within the sphere of criminal law only its most dangerous forms.
As noted above, recidivism of criminal offenses shall be recognized as the commission by a person of a serious crime if that person was previously sentenced to imprisonment for committing a serious crime. The first condition for recidivism of criminal offenses is that the person has a conviction for a previously committed serious crime.
Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 79 of the Criminal Code, a person shall be deemed to have a conviction from the date on which the conviction becomes legally effective. Therefore, if a person commits a new crime before the previous judgment has entered into legal force, the conviction under the previous judgment shall not be taken into account when determining the type of recidivism.
The legislative definition of recidivism of criminal offenses may give rise to difficulties in interpreting the meaning of the words “if that person was previously convicted.” In the 1997 Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a more understandable and precise term was used in this case: “if the person has a conviction.” At the same time, in essence, these terms should be considered equivalent, since, in accordance with the meaning of Part 3 of the commented article, as well as Article 79 of the Criminal Code, it is precisely a conviction (not removed or expunged) that constitutes the legal basis for recognizing recidivism and the occurrence of other legal consequences. Therefore, the expungement or removal of a conviction annuls all legal consequences associated with that conviction, except for the restrictions established by an additional type of punishment imposed for life (Part 9 of Article 79 of the Criminal Code).
According to paragraph 6 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 23, 2006, “On Judicial Practice in Assigning Types of Institutions of the Penal Enforcement System to Persons Sentenced to Imprisonment,” persons who have previously served a sentence of imprisonment shall mean persons who, in the past, were sentenced by a court judgment that entered into legal force to imprisonment and actually served that sentence in institutions of the penal enforcement system, provided that the conviction had not been removed or expunged in accordance with the procedure established by law at the time of commission of the new crime.
Persons sentenced conditionally pursuant to Article 63 of the Criminal Code, as well as persons in respect of whom a deferment of execution of punishment was applied pursuant to Article 74 of the Criminal Code, if they did not actually serve imprisonment in institutions of the penal enforcement system, shall not be classified as persons who previously served imprisonment.
The following shall also be classified as persons who previously served a sentence of imprisonment:
persons conditionally sentenced to imprisonment (Article 40 of the Criminal Code of the Kazakh SSR, Article 63 of the Criminal Code) who, on the grounds provided for in Parts 7, 8 and 9 of Article 40 of the Criminal Code of the Kazakh SSR and Parts 3, 4 and 5 of Article 64 of the Criminal Code, were sent to institutions of the penal enforcement system to serve their sentences;
persons sentenced to imprisonment with deferment of execution of the judgment (Article 41-1 of the Criminal Code of the Kazakh SSR, Article 74 of the Criminal Code) who, on the grounds provided for in Parts 5 and 7 of Article 41-1 of the Criminal Code of the Kazakh SSR and Parts 2, 3 and 4 of Article 74 of the Criminal Code, were sent to institutions of the penal enforcement system to serve their sentences;
persons conditionally sentenced to imprisonment with mandatory involvement in labor (Article 23-2 of the Criminal Code of the Kazakh SSR) who, on the grounds provided for in Part 5 of Article 23-2 of the Criminal Code of the Kazakh SSR, were sent to institutions of the penal enforcement system to serve their sentences;
persons having convictions under judgments issued by courts of the former USSR and the union republics that were part of it (in respect of convictions dating from before December 8, 1991);
persons sentenced to imprisonment by a court judgment of another state who, in connection with their subsequent transfer to serve their sentences, were held in institutions of the penal enforcement system of the Republic of Kazakhstan in accordance with a court decision accepting the judgment of a foreign state for enforcement, in cases provided for by international treaties of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The concept of a serious crime is provided in Part 4 of Article 11 of the Criminal Code. It is an intentional crime for which the sanction of the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code provides for punishment in the form of imprisonment for a maximum term not exceeding twelve years.
The second condition for recognizing recidivism is the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment on the person upon the first conviction that serves as the basis for recidivism. The legal basis for establishing this condition is a court judgment having legal force at the time of commission of the last crime constituting recidivism. Such judgment must provide for imprisonment as the principal punishment. In this regard, it does not matter whether the person has served the sentence or continues to serve it, whether the person served the sentence in full or in part, or whether the sentence was actually served or imposed conditionally.
The second condition for recognizing recidivism shall be absent and, accordingly, recidivism shall not be recognized if the person was initially sentenced to imprisonment but subsequently this type of punishment was cancelled or replaced with another type of punishment. In this case, the court decision cancelling or replacing imprisonment must be issued before the person commits the second serious crime.
A person released from punishment by a court judgment (ruling), regardless of the period spent in custody in connection with the application of detention as a preventive measure, shall, pursuant to Part 2 of Article 79 of the Criminal Code, be deemed to have no conviction from the moment the judicial act on the basis of which that person was released from punishment enters into legal force.
Part 2 of the commented article provides the concept of dangerous recidivism of criminal offenses. Thus, dangerous recidivism of criminal offenses shall be recognized in two cases:
when a serious crime is committed, if the person was previously sentenced to imprisonment twice for committing a serious crime or was sentenced for committing an especially serious crime;
when an especially serious crime is committed, if the person was previously sentenced to imprisonment for committing a serious or especially serious crime.
Both of the specified forms of dangerous recidivism are equivalent in terms of their legal consequences. The second form is not more socially dangerous than the first, and conversely, the first is not more dangerous than the second.
It should be noted that both forms of dangerous recidivism provide for so-called minimum requirements necessary for its recognition. In practice, there are cases where a person having convictions for several previously committed serious and especially serious crimes commits several (two, three or more) serious and especially serious crimes. In this case, dangerous recidivism of criminal offenses shall also be recognized, and at the same time there shall be a concurrence or repeated commission of the newly committed crimes.
It follows from the content of the concept of dangerous recidivism that it differs from simple recidivism in the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the crimes constituting it, that is, it has a higher degree of public danger.
Certain questions may arise regarding the content of Subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code. When determining the first form of dangerous recidivism, the expression “if that person was previously sentenced to imprisonment twice” is used. This expression has a dual meaning. On the one hand, it may be interpreted as the issuance of two separate convictions against the same person in respect of two different instances of committing serious crimes. On the other hand, it may refer to the conviction of a person for two instances (episodes) of committing serious crimes under a single court judgment within the framework of one criminal case.
From the standpoint of criminal law logic and the legal regularities existing in criminal law, both cases fall within the above-mentioned concept, given that a conviction arises when a person is convicted of each individual crime. In this regard, the circumstances related to the time and sequence of commission of the crimes constituting dangerous recidivism, as well as the sequence and procedure of conviction for them (within the framework of one or several separate judgments), are irrelevant. In all these cases, the person shall be considered to have been convicted twice for committing serious crimes. This ground also covers the commission by a person of two serious crimes within the framework of so-called ideal concurrence of crimes (where, by one act (omission), a person commits an act containing the elements of two or more serious crimes).
It is important to bear in mind that, as was the case previously (under the 1997 Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), the criminal legislation of 2014 does not provide for such concepts as “recidivist” or “dangerous recidivist.” In this case, the terms “person who has committed recidivism of criminal offenses” and “person who has committed dangerous recidivism of criminal offenses,” respectively, are used. The procedure previously provided for in the Criminal Code of the Kazakh SSR of 1959, whereby a convicted person was assigned the legal status of an “especially dangerous recidivist” by a court judgment, led to a violation of the principle of equality before the law and the court and to an exaggeration of the personal qualities of the subject of the crime when deciding on the grounds and limits of criminal liability, whereas the danger of the act committed is determined by its objective characteristics, in particular, the nature and extent of the harm caused, the circumstances and method of committing the crime, and other objective circumstances. At present, it is the conduct of a person who has committed crimes, rather than the personality of the convicted person, that is recognized as recidivist.
According to Part 3 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, the grounds for recognizing recidivism of criminal offenses and dangerous recidivism of criminal offenses are not any convictions that have not been removed or expunged, but only those convictions associated with sentencing a person to imprisonment for crimes committed as an adult. Convictions for crimes committed by a person under the age of eighteen, as well as convictions removed or expunged in accordance with the procedure established by the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, shall not be taken into account when recognizing recidivism.
When a person is convicted on the basis of a concurrence of criminal offenses, where one of the crimes was committed while the person was a minor and the other crime was committed after reaching the age of eighteen, the period for expungement of the conviction for each crime shall be calculated independently after serving the sentence imposed for the concurrence of criminal offenses: for the crime committed while a minor — under Article 89 of the Criminal Code, and for the crime committed as an adult — under Article 79 of the Criminal Code. In such cases, the conviction included in the concurrence of criminal offenses for the crime committed as an adult shall be taken into account.
At the same time, this conviction shall be taken into account when recognizing recidivism only if, by the time the new crime is committed, the period for expungement of the conviction for the crime committed by the person after reaching adulthood (the age of eighteen) has not expired.
When a person is convicted on the basis of a concurrence of criminal offenses or judgments for crimes belonging to different degrees of severity, convictions shall be expunged independently for each crime in accordance with Part 3 of Article 79 of the Criminal Code. In this case, all periods for expungement shall be calculated from the moment the person actually serves the final punishment imposed by the court pursuant to Article 58 or Article 60 of the Criminal Code.
In Part 4 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, the legislator establishes the legal consequences of recidivism of criminal offenses, which are expressed in the fact that recidivism of criminal offenses entails a more severe punishment on the grounds and within the limits provided for by the Criminal Code.
The existence of recidivism of criminal offenses, in accordance with Subparagraph 1) of Part 1 of Article 54 of the Criminal Code, shall be taken into account as a circumstance aggravating criminal liability and punishment.
When examining circumstances related to previous convictions that have not been removed or expunged, the provisions of Article 6 of the Criminal Code should be taken into account, and when deciding on the issue of recidivism of criminal offenses, convictions for acts that have been decriminalized as a result of amendments to criminal legislation by the time the judgment in the new case is delivered should not be taken into account.
When criminal legislation concerning the categories of crimes for which a person has convictions that have not been removed or expunged is amended in the direction of increasing their severity, such convictions should be taken into account when recognizing recidivism as crimes belonging to the category to which they were assigned at the time the judgment was delivered. In cases where, as a result of changes in legislation, the crimes for which the defendant was previously convicted and has convictions that have not been removed or expunged have been transferred to a category of less serious crimes, their categories should be determined in accordance with Article 6 of the Criminal Code and taken into account when recognizing recidivism under the new law.
When establishing the number of previous convictions, courts should bear in mind that convictions for crimes committed before the judgment in the first case was delivered, with the final punishment determined on the basis of the concurrence of crimes pursuant to Part 6 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, shall be counted as one conviction.
When determining recidivism or dangerous recidivism of criminal offenses, a person previously sentenced to imprisonment shall be considered to be a person who, in the past, was sentenced by a court judgment that entered into legal force to imprisonment for committing a serious or especially serious crime, with the sentence to be served in institutions of the penal enforcement system, including cases where that person did not serve the sentence (for example, evaded serving it or was released from serving the sentence pursuant to Article 75 of the Criminal Code).
Paragraph 12 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 25, 2015, “On Certain Issues of Sentencing,” states: “When recognizing recidivism, the person's previous conviction for committing a serious or especially serious crime, which has not been removed or expunged, must be taken into account even where imprisonment was imposed conditionally (with the application of Article 63 of the Criminal Code), or with the application of deferment of execution of the judgment (Articles 74 and 76 of the Criminal Code), and that person committed a new crime during the period of probationary control or during the period of deferment of execution of the judgment, or where the conditional conviction or deferment of execution of the judgment was cancelled and that person was sent to the relevant institution to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court judgment” (paragraph 5).
When deciding on the recognition of recidivism of criminal offenses in respect of persons previously convicted both in the Republic of Kazakhstan and in other states, courts must be guided by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, taking into account the applicable international treaties.
When recognizing recidivism of criminal offenses, convictions that have not been removed or expunged under judgments delivered by courts (tribunals) of the former USSR and the union republics that were part of it shall be taken into account. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 76-1 of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (Minsk, January 22, 1993, as amended on March 28, 1997) and Article 99 of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (Chisinau, October 7, 2002), convictions that have not been removed or expunged under judgments of the countries participating in these Conventions may also be taken into account.
At the same time, courts must comply with the requirements of Article 8 of the Criminal Code and, based on the classification of crimes established by judgments of foreign state courts, determine the criminality and punishability of the act committed and its classification under the relevant provisions of the criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, without worsening the position of the convicted persons.
At the same time, I would like to draw the attention of the courts to the specific features of recognizing recidivism in cases of conditional conviction. Thus, paragraph 9 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the Application by Courts of Legislation on Recidivism of Criminal Offenses” states: “If a person was conditionally convicted with the application of Article 63 of the Criminal Code and an additional punishment was imposed on that person, the period for expungement of the conviction for the principal and additional punishments shall be calculated independently: for conditional conviction, on the basis of Subparagraph 1) of Part 3 of Article 79 of the Criminal Code — from the expiration of the probationary control period; for the additional punishment, on the basis of Part 5 of Article 79 of the Criminal Code — upon actual service of the punishment. Therefore, if a person commits a new crime after the expiration of the probationary period imposed by the judgment in connection with conditional conviction, but before fully serving the additional punishment, that person cannot be recognized as having a conviction involving imprisonment. In such cases, the court delivering the last judgment shall take into account only the person's unexpunged conviction relating to the punishment imposed as an additional punishment, and when imposing punishment on the basis of a concurrence of judgments, the court, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 60 and 61 of the Criminal Code, shall fully or partially add to the punishment imposed by the last judgment the unserved part of the additional punishment imposed by the previous judgment.”
When applying Article 60 and listing unexpunged convictions in the introductory part of the judgment, the type and amount of both the principal and additional punishment must be indicated.
At the same time, persons released from serving their sentences pursuant to Article 77 of the Criminal Code due to the expiration of the limitation period for the conviction; persons conditionally convicted (Article 63) after the expiration of the probationary control period; persons convicted with the application of deferment of execution of the judgment (Article 77 of the Criminal Code) after the expiration of the deferment period, if the person was released from serving the sentence; or persons released from punishment due to a combination of difficult circumstances (Part 1 of Article 76 of the Criminal Code) shall not be considered persons previously sentenced to imprisonment.
Persons whose punishment imposed by a court judgment (corrective labor, restriction of liberty, etc.) was replaced by imprisonment on the grounds provided for in Part 3 of Article 42 of the Criminal Code and Part 2 of Article 45 of the Criminal Code cannot be regarded as persons sentenced to imprisonment.
Paragraph 8 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 23, 2006, “On Judicial Practice in Assigning Types of Institutions of the Penal Enforcement System to Persons Sentenced to Imprisonment,” also emphasizes: “Persons whose punishment imposed by a court judgment (a fine, corrective labor, restriction of liberty) was replaced by imprisonment on the grounds provided for in Part 3 of Articles 41, 42 and 44 of the Criminal Code cannot be regarded as persons who have previously served a sentence of imprisonment.
The following also cannot be regarded as persons who have previously served a sentence of imprisonment:
persons who were held in places of imprisonment pursuant to a court judgment before the case was considered under cassation procedure, if the said judicial instance cancelled the judgment and terminated the case, or amended it and imposed a punishment not involving imprisonment, or applied conditional conviction to imprisonment or deferment of execution of the judgment;
persons sentenced to imprisonment but who did not actually serve the sentence and were not held in places of imprisonment due to deferment of serving the sentence granted to pregnant women, women with minor children, and men raising minor children alone (Article 74 of the Criminal Code); release from punishment due to illness (Article 75 of the Criminal Code); due to a combination of difficult circumstances (Article 76 of the Criminal Code); or due to the judgment not being enforced because the limitation period for the conviction had expired (Article 77 of the Criminal Code); or due to the application of an amnesty act or release from serving the sentence by way of pardon (Article 78 of the Criminal Code);
persons sentenced to imprisonment within the period of their detention in custody as a preventive measure, since they did not serve the punishment in institutions of the penal enforcement system;
persons serving a sentence of imprisonment in the event of their conviction for criminal offenses committed before the judgment pursuant to which they first began serving a sentence of imprisonment was delivered;
persons sentenced to imprisonment and having served their sentences in places of imprisonment for acts whose criminality and punishability have been eliminated by the current law, as well as where the current law does not provide for imprisonment as a punishment for committing such acts.”
Conviction for committing a criminal misdemeanor does not entail a criminal record, and convictions for committing minor and medium-gravity crimes shall not be taken into account when determining recidivism.
In cases of recidivism and dangerous recidivism, punishment shall be imposed taking into account the provisions of Subparagraph 10) of Part 1 of Article 54 and Article 59 of the Criminal Code.
The legal consequences of recidivism are:
- recognition of recidivism and dangerous recidivism of criminal offenses as circumstances aggravating criminal liability and punishment (Subparagraph 1) of Part 1 of Article 54 of the Criminal Code);
- a special procedure for imposing punishment (Article 59 of the Criminal Code);
- assignment of a specific type of regime for serving a sentence of imprisonment (Subparagraphs 3) and 4) of Part 5 of Article 46 of the Criminal Code).
In addition to the types of recidivism established by law, criminal law theory identifies other types. Thus, according to the nature of the crimes committed, recidivism is generally divided into general and special recidivism. General recidivism is the commission of any new crime by a person who has a conviction. For example, a person who has a conviction for fraud (Article 190 of the Criminal Code) commits hooliganism (Article 293 of the Criminal Code). Special recidivism is the commission by a person who has a conviction of a new identical or similar crime.
The legal significance of general and special recidivism lies in the fact that they are taken into account by the court as circumstances aggravating liability and punishment. If general recidivism occurs during the period of serving a sentence for a previously committed crime, punishment shall be imposed in accordance with the rules established by Article 60 of the Criminal Code for a concurrence of judgments. Furthermore, special recidivism entails the same consequences as general recidivism if it occurs during the period when the convicted person is serving a sentence for a previously committed crime or if the offender served a sentence of imprisonment for the first crime.
According to the number of convictions, single (simple) recidivism and multiple (complex) recidivism are distinguished. Single (simple) recidivism of criminal offenses consists in the commission of an intentional crime by a person who has one conviction. Multiple (complex) recidivism of criminal offenses consists in the commission of a new intentional crime by a person who has two or more convictions.
Depending on the place where the crime is committed, penitentiary recidivism is distinguished — the commission of a new intentional crime by a person serving a sentence in places of imprisonment.
Having completed the consideration of this issue, I would like to present my view of this problem. The legislator explains the need to distinguish recidivism of criminal offenses by differentiating criminal liability in view of the expediency of applying more severe measures to persons who demonstrate an unwillingness to embark on the path of rehabilitation and who are inclined to commit a new intentional crime. In addition, this is explained by the need to resolve practical issues related to the organization of targeted efforts by law enforcement agencies to combat the most dangerous representatives of the criminal environment, as well as persons who require more focused attention because they pose a greater public danger.
As follows from the content of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, the basis of recidivism of criminal offenses is a person's conviction. In my view, a person who has served a sentence and atoned for their guilt continues to remain under suspicion that they may commit a new crime, which means preventive, continuing criminal punishment that becomes an additional punishment if a new crime is committed. The existence of a conviction is a circumstance relating to the individual and, in itself, does not constitute either greater guilt or a higher degree of public danger of the crime, especially since the punishment for the previous crime has been fully served and the person's obligation to the state has been discharged. By establishing the institution of criminal record and the periods for its expungement, the legislator presupposes in advance that a person, despite having served the punishment imposed, has still not achieved rehabilitation.
It seems that the existence of a criminal record contradicts the principles of law, justice and humanism and conflicts with the provisions contained in Paragraph 7 of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In addition to the criminal law consequences arising from the provisions of Article 79 of the Criminal Code, a criminal record also entails legal consequences established by other laws.
In accordance with Paragraph 8 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the United Nations Congress in Geneva on August 30, 1995, a person's previous criminal record may be taken into account when executing a sentence of imprisonment solely for the purpose of grouping prisoners into categories for their separate confinement.
Commentary from 2021 on the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan by Isidor Shamilovich Borchashvili, Honored Figure of Kazakhstan, Doctor of Law, Professor, Academician of the Kazakhstan National Academy of Natural Sciences, Member of the Scientific Advisory Councils under the Constitutional Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Member of the Working Group on Reform of the Law Enforcement System under the Security Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Honored Employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Constitution Law Code Regulatory Decree Order Decision Resolution Advocate Almaty Lawyer Legal services Legal Consultation Civil Criminal Administrative cases and disputes Defense Arbitration Legal Company of Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases Declaration Decree Order Resolution Decision Report Conclusion Application Conclusion Convention Contract Memorandum Methodology Rules Note Regulations Program Charter Charter Article Commentary Resolution Regulations Protocol Draft Program Rules Addresses
