Complaint against the action/inaction of the inquiry officer of the Inquiry Department of the Almaly District Police Department of the Almaty City Police Department
To the Prosecutor’s Office of the Almaly District of Almaty
from attorney: Galymzhan Turlybekovich Sarzhanov
Law Firm “Zakon i Pravo”
BIN 201240021767
79 Abylai Khan Avenue, Office 304, Almaty.
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+7 708 971 78 58.
In the interests of: GA
IIN 040520501362
Complaint
against the action/inaction of the inquiry officer of the Inquiry Department of the Almaly District Police Department of the Almaty City Police Department Nazir U.B.
A criminal case registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (ERDR) under No. 257511031000798 pursuant to Article 317, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, based on the statement of Ooy A.T. against V A.A. and G A.A., is pending before the Inquiry Department of the Almaly District Police Department.
Previously, the senior inquiry officer of the Inquiry Department of the Almaly District Police Department of Almaty, Police Captain Nazir U.B. (hereinafter – the inquiry officer), in the said criminal case, guided by Articles 270 and 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the CPC), issued a resolution to appoint a commission forensic medical examination. We were acquainted with the Resolution on June 24, 2025.
Pursuant to Article 272, Part 5 of the CPC, participants in the proceedings protecting their own rights and interests or the rights and interests they represent shall submit in writing to the body conducting the criminal proceedings the questions on which, in their opinion, the expert should provide an opinion, indicate the objects of examination, and also name a person who may be invited as an expert. The body conducting the criminal proceedings shall not have the right to refuse to appoint an examination, except where the questions submitted for its resolution are unrelated to the criminal case or the subject matter of the forensic examination. In the event of refusal to grant the motion, the person conducting the pre-trial investigation shall issue a reasoned resolution within three days from the date of receipt of the motion.
On June 27, 2025, I submitted a motion to put additional questions before the expert, in which additional questions to the expert were indicated, and in particular, I requested that a forensic medical examination also be appointed in respect of physician T R.E. of the Maxillofacial Surgery Department of City Clinical Hospital No. 5 of Almaty.
However, the inquiry officer, violating the time limits for resolving motions provided for by Article 99, Part 4 of the CPC, responded to the motion on July 7, 2025.
Moreover, the inquiry officer unlawfully issued a resolution refusing to grant the motion, referring to the fact that a commission forensic medical examination based on medical documents had already been appointed in the criminal case, for which documents seized from City Clinical Hospital No. 5 “Maxillofacial Surgery” had been provided.
We disagree with the inquiry officer’s Resolution dated July 7, 2025 refusing to grant the motion and consider the Resolution to be unfounded and unreasoned on the following grounds:
Firstly: In our motion, we requested that additional questions be included;
Secondly: According to the materials of the criminal case, on October 17, 2024, at City Clinical Hospital No. 5, Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Almaty, patient Ooy A.T. underwent a surgical intervention performed by physician Tym R.E., which included extraction of tooth 2.7 (27), removal of filling material from the maxillary sinus, curettage of the tooth socket, and hemostasis.
Considering that this intervention, by its nature, is surgical and was performed after dental treatment provided by Guseynov A.A., it could have caused its own complications, distorted the clinical picture of the pathology, or affected the subsequent health condition of the victim, Ooy A.T.
Due to the need to ensure a comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the circumstances of the case, pursuant to Articles 24, 270 and 272 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, for the purpose of differentiating the causes of the adverse consequences, as well as identifying a possible causal relationship with the actions of the physicians of City Clinical Hospital No. 5, we also requested that a forensic medical examination be appointed in respect of physician Ta R.E. of City Clinical Hospital No. 5, Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Almaty.
Pursuant to Article 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the CPC), an inquiry officer, when conducting proceedings in criminal cases, is obliged to strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, this Code, and other regulatory legal acts specified in Article 1 of this Code.
Accordingly, we are applying to you by exercising the right provided for in Article 100 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which stipulates that decisions and actions of the person conducting the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor, the court or the judge may be appealed in accordance with the procedure established by this Code by participants in the proceedings, as well as by individuals and legal entities if the procedural actions being conducted affect their interests.
Pursuant to Article 99, Part 4 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a motion shall be considered and resolved immediately after it is submitted. In cases where an immediate decision on the motion is impossible, it shall be resolved no later than three days from the date of its submission.
By virtue of Article 105 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, complaints filed by persons protecting their own rights and interests or the rights and interests they represent against actions (inaction) and decisions of persons conducting the pre-trial investigation shall be submitted to the head of the investigative department, the head of the inquiry body, the prosecutor or the court.
Pursuant to Article 1 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the Prosecutor’s Office”, the prosecutor’s office, on behalf of the state, exercises supreme supervision over compliance with the law within the limits and forms established by law in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Article 5 of the Law stipulates that the Prosecutor’s Office exercises supreme supervision (hereinafter – supervision) over the legality.
Pursuant to Article 58, Paragraph 3 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where there are grounds and in the manner prescribed by this Code, the prosecutor shall have the right, by his/her resolution, to take cases into his/her proceedings and personally conduct the investigation, exercising the powers of an investigator. Supervision over the legality of the pre-trial investigation shall be exercised by an authorized prosecutor.
Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Article 105 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
I REQUEST:
· To cancel the decision made by the senior inquiry officer of the Inquiry Department of the Almaly District Police Department of the Almaty City Police Department, Police Captain Nazir U.B., refusing to grant the motion dated June 28, 2025;
· To grant the attorney’s motion to put additional questions before the expert.
Attorney / Defense Counsel:
** G.T. Sarzhanov**
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
