Complaint to the investigative court against the actions / omissions of the investigator and the prosecutor
On April 10, 2025, in the presence of the investigating judge of the Maktaaral District Court of Turkestan region, Slambekov E. B., sitting in the secretariat of Amangeldiev M., prosecutor of the maktaaral District Prosecutor's office E. Sarzhan, lawyer G. T. Sarzhanov, defender of the suspect E. K., investigator of the MAKTAARAL APB D. Zhaksylyk, in the courtroom, at a closed court session, the complainant lawyer Galymzhan Turlybekovich sarzhanov prosecutor of Maktaaralsky District, "I don't know," he said, " but I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.:
The complaint filed by the complainant's lawyer Galymzhan Turlybekovich Sarzhanov for the actions of the prosecutor of Maktaaral district, the investigator of Maktaaral APB D. K. Zhaksylyk should be left unattended and returned.
The investigative court is guided by the following arguments in the definition part of its decision: "the arguments of the lawyer Sarzhanov G. T., the defense lawyer of the name of the suspect E. K., on the basis of the requirements of Article 105 of the CPC, were considered by the maktaaral District Prosecutor's office, instructed by the district prosecutor on March 28, 2025, and on April 06, 2025, a decision was adopted to satisfy the complaint. The petition was answered by the investigator, the complaint by the prosecutor in accordance with the requirements of the law in a timely manner.
In this case, on the basis of the above, the complaint is left without consideration and is subject to withdrawal.»
Dear court, we do not agree with this court decision, because the reason for our appeal to the court is the gross injustice and illegality that occurred during the pre – trial investigation of the criminal case against E. K. A. under my protection, and deception, we are deeply dissatisfied with the irresponsible actions of unskilled employees of the prosecutor's office. Their actions undermine the dignity of an employee of the prosecutor's office.
In accordance with Article 1 of the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan" on the prosecutor's office", the prosecutor's office on behalf of the state exercises High supervision over compliance with the rule of law in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan within the limits and forms established by law. In accordance with Article 5 of the law, the prosecutor's office carries out high supervision of the rule of law (hereinafter referred to as supervision).
However, the employees of the prosecutor's Office prefer to violate the law out of compliance with it.
So, as for the event, time, place, method, cause, consequences of a violation of Criminal Law, 19.03.2025 at 16:09 hours, e-registration on the electronic portal of the application no. ZT-2025-00914683, to the prosecutor of the Maktaaral District of the Turkestan region on the basis of Article 105 of the CPC of the Police Department of the Maktaaral District of the Turkestan region for the actions of the senior investigator of the TB Police Department of the 24, 58, 64, 65-1,78, 99, 100, 105 "I don't know," he said. The prosecutor's office should have responded to this complaint by March 26.
However, the responsible employee of the prosecutor's Office of Maktaaral District of Turkestan region Sarzhan Yerkebulan Yerzhanovich does not work out Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, but is guided by his own procedural code and works on the procedural deadline approved by him. In particular, the prosecutor's office did not receive a response within the time period specified in the procedural legislation.
In accordance with Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, complaints against the actions (omissions) and decisions of persons conducting pre-trial investigations submitted by persons defending their rights and interests or the rights and interests represented by them are submitted to the prosecutor or court. The prosecutor, within seven days from the moment of receipt of the complaint, is obliged to consider it and notify the person who filed the complaint about the decision made.
However, the Defense party received a partial, illegal, non-compliance with any procedural norms from the prosecutor's Office of Maktaaral district with a delay of 4 days of the Document No. 2-12-25-00473 of the east of 29.03.2025, a response posted on the e-application portal on 00:00 of 30.03.2025.
As specified in Article 58 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the prosecutor is an official within his competence, exercising other powers in accordance with Article 83 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and this code, and in the presence of grounds for this, in accordance with the procedure provided for by this code, the prosecutor, by his decision, monitors the legality of the pre-trial investigation.
As it was found during the court session, the prosecutor's Office sent instructions to the investigative body on the criminal case No. 255143031000056 in the order of Article 35 of the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "on the prosecutor's Office" on 28.03.2025 at 11:52. However, in accordance with Article 58 of the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "on the prosecutor's office" and the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the prosecutor's office had to make a decision to recognize the investigator's decision as illegal.
As we said, God may have heard our prayers during the court session, we saw that on April 6, 2025, the prosecutor's office, which meets the requirements of the law with a delay of 10 days, issued a decision to satisfy the complaint on April 10, 2025, on the introduction of an act of prosecutorial supervision in order to eliminate violations of the law and illegal recognition of the investigator's decision on partial satisfaction of the defense's petition dated March 13, 2025.
We believe that the above-mentioned violations of the law on the part of the prosecutor's Office were committed by the investigating court without consideration of the complaint, while holding it with his hands and seeing it with his eyes.
On the basis of Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, sent by the investigative court to the court, we consider the complaint on the actions of the prosecutor of Maktaaral District of Turkestan region, senior investigator of the TB Police Department of Maktaaral District D. K. Zhaksylyk and consider that the complaint should have taken a separate decision on the part of the prosecutor's office in order to eliminate violations of the rule of law and bring to disciplinary responsibility employees of the prosecutor's office responsible for non-performance or improper performance of official duties.
In accordance with Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a suspect, his lawyer, legal representative, victim, his legal representative, representative, a person whose rights and freedoms are directly affected by the act of the investigating judge, has the right to appeal against the decision, sanction of the investigating judge on the detention of a suspect and other investigative actions.
Based on the above, in accordance with Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I ask the court:
* Cancellation of the decision of the investigative judge of the Maktaaral District Court of the Turkestan region E. Slambekov dated April 10, 2025, on the return of the appeal without consideration;
* Provide a full review and legal assessment of the complaint filed on the basis of Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the actions of the prosecutor of Maktaaral District of Turkestan region.
April 6, 2025 deputy prosecutor of Maktaaral District D. K. Romanov, studying the materials of pre-trial investigation of the SDTBT No. 255143031000056 under Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the order of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I considered and identified the complaint of the defense lawyer G. Sarzhanov (in the interests of E. A.) No. 5143012500002:
In the process of conducting covert investigative actions in the case of pre-trial investigation No. 255143031000006, initiated by the maktaaral District Police Department (hereinafter APB) with Part 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter CC), it was established that audio and video recordings were published on the WhatsApp social network, inciting national or religious discord. On 28.02.2025, this fact was registered in SDTBT No. 255143031000056 of the PB of Maktaral district for signs of a criminal offense provided for by Part 2 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
On April 2, 2025, the prosecutor's Office of Maktaaral District of Turkestan region received a complaint from Defense Minister G. Sarzhanov No. 5143012500002:
It declared the decision of the investigator to refuse to satisfy the petition illegal and gave reasons for taking measures against employees who committed violations.
At the time of receipt of the complaint, No. 255143031000056 was at the stage of preliminary investigation for pre-trial investigation.
Based on the results of studying the materials of the pre-trial investigation and checking the presented evidence, the complaint of the defense lawyer G. Sarzhanov No. zh.5143012500002 is subject to partial satisfaction on the following grounds:
On 13.03.2025, the Investigator D. Zhaksylyk refused to satisfy the petition of the defense attorney G. Sarzhanov in the case in accordance with Article 99 of the CPC (to obtain a copy of the audio-video clip of nemses with a link to the audio-video clip sent by the group"Atakent Brothers").
In accordance with paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 70 of the criminal code, the defense attorney has the right to familiarize himself with the following materials of the case (in accordance with the list specified in paragraph 5) against the person under his protection from the moment of entering the case, with the exception of the case materials containing data on operational-search and counterintelligence activities, secret investigative actions.
Currently, a resolution on declassification has been adopted on the secret investigative actions carried out in the case. In this regard, the resolution of the Investigator D. Zhaksylyk on the refusal to satisfy the defense's petition dated 13.03.2025 is canceled, and the part of familiarizing the defense with the materials of the case (audio-video video sent by the group"Atakent Brothers") is subject to satisfaction in accordance with paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 70 of the criminal code.
Defense lawyer G. Sarzhanov's complaint No. zh. 5143012500002 in terms of taking measures against employees who have committed violations of the law is refused on the following grounds: in this case, the investigator has not violated the requirements of the CPC, there is no reason to introduce an act of prosecutor's supervision or take measures against employees. On the basis of what has been said, following parts 3,4 of Article 105 of the CPC, Article 198, the RESOLUTIONЛЫ:
1.the complaint of the defense lawyer G. Sarzhanov dated April 2, 2025 No. G5143012500002 about familiarizing the defense lawyer with declassified case materials (audio-video video sent by the group"Atakent brothers") should be partially satisfied with the cancellation of the investigator's decision to refuse to satisfy the defense's petition dated 13.03.2025.
2. the decision of the investigator to refuse to satisfy the petition of the defense attorney dated 13.03.2025 shall be recognized as illegal.
3.refuse to satisfy the complaint of defense lawyer G. Sarzhanov No. zh.5143012500002 in terms of taking measures against employees who have committed violations of the law.
4.this resolution, the complaint of Defense Minister G. Sarzhanov and the materials of the audit should be attached to the materials of the pre-trial investigation.
5.Send a copy of the resolution to the supervising prosecutor.
6.notify the person who filed the complaint of the decision made in court in accordance with Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan with a simultaneous explanation of the right to appeal this decision.
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
