Driving a Person to Suicide by a Group of Persons Acting in Prior Conspiracy or by a Criminal Group

1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the “Criminal Code”) provides for enhanced criminal liability for the acts specified in Part 1 of that Article where they are committed, in particular:

1. against a person who is knowingly in a helpless state or materially or otherwise dependent on the perpetrator;
2. against two or more persons;
3. by a group of persons acting in prior conspiracy or by a criminal group;
4. through the use of telecommunications networks or informatization facilities, including the Internet.

Such acts are punishable by restriction of liberty for a term of up to five years or deprivation of liberty for the same term.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan)

Accordingly, subparagraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code constitutes a qualified offence in relation to the offence provided for in Part 1 of Article 105.

For the purposes of proper legal classification, the following elements must be established cumulatively:

• the existence of the basic offence provided for in Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code;
• the participation of at least two persons in the offence;
• the joint and intentional nature of their conduct;
• the applicable form of complicity;
• the prior nature of the agreement, where the offence is alleged to have been committed by a “group of persons acting in prior conspiracy”;
• or the presence of the characteristics of a criminal group;
• the existence of a causal link between the relevant conduct of the perpetrators and the suicide or attempted suicide, insofar as the offence specifically concerns driving a person to suicide;
• the subjective element of each participant;
• the individual role of each person.

Article 105 covers not only driving a person to suicide, but also inciting a person to commit suicide and assisting in the commission of suicide.

Therefore, the investigation must establish the specific form of conduct involved and the role played by each participant.

2. CURRENT VERSION OF ARTICLE 105 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN

Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code provides for criminal liability for:

driving a person to suicide or attempted suicide by means of threats, cruel treatment, or systematic humiliation of the victim’s human dignity, as well as inciting a person to commit suicide or assisting in the commission of suicide.

The applicable penalty is restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for a term of up to three years.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan)

Part 2 provides for enhanced liability where the specified aggravating circumstances are present, including where the act is committed by a group of persons acting in prior conspiracy or by a criminal group. The maximum penalty is deprivation of liberty for a term of up to five years.

Part 3 establishes special enhanced liability where an act provided for in Part 1 or Part 2 is committed against a minor. The applicable penalty is deprivation of liberty for a term of five to nine years.

This means that, when considering classification under subparagraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 105, it is necessary to determine whether the circumstances giving rise to the application of Part 3 are present. If the act is committed against a minor, the applicability of the specific provision establishing more severe liability must be considered.

3. THE PLACE OF THE PROVISION WITHIN THE CRIMINAL LAW SYSTEM

Article 105 of the Criminal Code belongs to the provisions intended to protect human life and health.

The direct legal interest protected by the criminal offence under consideration is the set of social relations ensuring the protection of human life and a person’s psychophysical integrity.

The specific feature of Article 105 is that the act directly resulting in death or an attempted suicide is performed by the victim themselves.

Accordingly, when distinguishing an offence under Article 105 from murder, the following issues must be examined:

• who directly performed the act resulting in death;
• whether the victim intended to take their own life;
• whether the victim was subjected to any form of influence;
• the nature of that influence;
• the manner in which it was connected to the suicide;
• whether the accused intended to drive the victim to suicide, incite the victim to commit suicide, or assist in its commission;
• whether the resulting consequences were covered by the intent of the relevant participant.

The scientific and practical commentary on Article 105 published on Zakonpravo.kz also emphasizes the importance of establishing a causal link between the unlawful conduct of the perpetrator and the suicide or attempted suicide.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Criminal Liability for Driving a Person to Suicide)

4. SPECIFIC FEATURES OF CLASSIFICATION UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH 3) OF PART 2 OF ARTICLE 105

The aggravating circumstance of commission “by a group of persons acting in prior conspiracy or by a criminal group” primarily concerns the form of complicity.

Article 31 of the Criminal Code specifically regulates criminal liability for criminal offences committed by a group.

Under the current version of the law:

• a group of persons is understood as the joint participation of two or more perpetrators without prior conspiracy;
• a group of persons acting in prior conspiracy means the participation of persons who have agreed in advance to commit a criminal offence jointly;
• a criminal group includes an organized group, criminal organization, criminal community, transnational organized group, transnational criminal organization, transnational criminal community, terrorist group, extremist group, gang, or illegal paramilitary formation.

(Source: Adilet — Article 31 of the Criminal Code)

Accordingly, the concepts of:

“a group of persons acting in prior conspiracy”

and

“a criminal group”

are not synonymous.

This distinction is fundamentally important when preparing an indictment and drafting a court judgment.

5. COMMISSION BY A GROUP OF PERSONS ACTING IN PRIOR CONSPIRACY

For subparagraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code to apply, the following must be established:

1. the participation of two or more persons;
2. the intentional nature of their conduct;
3. the joint nature of their actions;
4. the existence of a prior agreement;
5. the purpose of that agreement to commit the relevant criminal offence;
6. the participation of each person in implementing the common criminal intent.

Prior conspiracy means that the agreement was reached before the commencement of the direct execution of the offence, rather than after one of the participants had already performed the relevant act.

The agreement may be:

• oral;
• written;
• expressed through messages;
• expressed through telephone communications;
• expressed through messaging applications;
• expressed through social networks;
• expressed through email;
• demonstrated through conduct manifesting consent.

The form of the agreement is not, in itself, decisive.

The principal requirement is to prove the substance of the agreement.

For example, it is insufficient merely to establish that A and B were in the same company and both insulted the victim.

It must be established that A and B had agreed in advance to exert systematic joint pressure on the victim in order to compel the victim to engage in certain conduct, that they understood the nature of the pressure, and that they jointly implemented their agreement.

6. CRIMINAL GROUP

Article 31 of the Criminal Code establishes a substantially more complex legal framework.

A group of three, four, or ten persons does not automatically constitute a criminal group.

One of the forms of criminal groups specifically provided for by law must be established.

In particular, the law includes the following within the concept of a criminal group:

• an organized group;
• a criminal organization;
• a criminal community;
• a transnational organized group;
• a transnational criminal organization;
• a transnational criminal community;
• a terrorist group;
• an extremist group;
• a gang;
• an illegal paramilitary formation.

(Source: Adilet — Article 31 of the Criminal Code)

Article 3 of the Criminal Code defines an organized group as a stable group of two or more persons who have united in advance for the purpose of committing one or more criminal offences.

The term “criminal group” is a broader collective concept.

Therefore, the joint exertion of psychological pressure by several persons cannot automatically be classified as an act committed by a criminal group.

7. DISTINGUISHING COMPLICITY FROM THE COINCIDENTAL CONVERGENCE OF ACTIONS

This is one of the key issues in cases of this category.

For example:

A systematically humiliated the victim;

B independently disseminated insulting information about the victim;

C had a conflict with the victim for personal reasons.

The mere fact that three persons engaged in conduct that objectively worsened the victim’s psychological condition does not, in itself, establish the existence of prior conspiracy.

The investigation must prove:

• that the participants were aware of one another’s conduct;
• that their conduct was coordinated;
• that they shared a common intent;
• that they pursued a common criminal outcome;
• the nature and content of the prior agreement.

Under Article 29 of the Criminal Code, the liability of accomplices is determined by the nature and degree of each person’s participation.

Co-perpetrators are held liable under the same article without reference to Article 28 of the Criminal Code. An organizer, instigator, or accessory is held liable with reference to Article 28, unless that person also acted as a co-perpetrator.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 29 of the Criminal Code)

8. TYPES OF ACCOMPLICES

Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan identifies the following types of accomplices:

1. perpetrator;
2. organizer;
3. instigator;
4. accessory.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 28 of the Criminal Code)

8.1. Perpetrator

A perpetrator is a person who directly commits a criminal offence or directly participates in its commission jointly with other persons.

In the circumstances under consideration, several persons may directly participate in exerting psychological pressure.

For example:

• one person systematically humiliates the victim;
• another threatens the victim;
• a third monitors or controls the victim;
• all of them understand and support a unified plan.

If each person directly implements the objective elements of the offence, classification as co-perpetration may be possible.

8.2. Organizer

An organizer is a person who organizes the commission of a criminal offence, directs its execution, establishes a criminal group, or leads such a group.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 28 of the Criminal Code)

For example, a person may have no direct contact with the victim but may:

• assign roles;
• determine when the pressure is to be exerted;
• give instructions;
• supervise the participants;
• determine the methods of pressure;
• demand that the pressure continue.

However, merely being a leader in an ordinary interpersonal conflict is insufficient to establish the criminal-law role of an organizer. Evidence specifically establishing the elements of that role is required.

8.3. Instigator

An instigator induces another person to commit a criminal offence by means of:

• persuasion;
• bribery;
• threats;
• other forms of influence.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 28 of the Criminal Code)

8.4. Accessory

An accessory facilitates the commission of a criminal offence by means of:

• advice;
• instructions;
• providing information;
• supplying means;
• removing obstacles;
• concealing traces or instruments of the offence where such concealment was promised in advance;
• other forms of assistance.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 28 of the Criminal Code)

9. INDIVIDUALIZATION OF THE CHARGES AGAINST EACH PARTICIPANT

This is one of the most important issues for the defence.

It is insufficient to limit the accusation to the general statement:

“Ivanov, Petrov, and Sidorov systematically humiliated the victim by a group of persons acting in prior conspiracy.”

The following circumstances must be specified:

• what action Ivanov committed;
• when it was committed;
• where it was committed;
• the method used;
• who was aware of the action;
• the role played by Ivanov;
• what action Petrov committed;
• what Sidorov did;
• when the prior conspiracy arose;
• how the agreement was expressed;
• how each person’s conduct was connected with the common plan;
• how each person’s conduct was connected with the resulting consequences.

The Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 April 2018, “On the Court Judgment,” expressly requires the specific criminal acts of each defendant to be described in the judgment where a criminal offence has been committed by a group.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 4 of 20 April 2018)

This requirement is directly relevant to cases under subparagraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code.

10. ACTUS REUS (OBJECTIVE ELEMENTS)

Article 105 provides for several alternative forms of conduct:

1. Driving a person to suicide;

2. Driving a person to attempted suicide;

3. Inciting a person to commit suicide;

4. Assisting in the commission of suicide.

With respect to the first category, namely driving a person to suicide, particular importance attaches to the following methods:

• threats;
• cruel treatment;
• systematic humiliation of human dignity.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 105 of the Criminal Code)

11. THREATS

For the purposes of Article 105, a threat constitutes psychological pressure capable of having a substantial impact on the victim.

A threat may concern:

• physical violence;
• harm to family members;
• the victim’s home;
• the victim’s financial circumstances;
• employment;
• disclosure of information;
• personal relationships;
• property;
• other interests or benefits important to the victim.

In each case, it is necessary to establish not only the fact that a threat was made but also its connection with the subsequent suicide or attempted suicide.

For classification under Part 2, the group nature of the conduct must additionally be established.

12. CRUEL TREATMENT

Cruel treatment may include:

• physical violence;
• abuse and mistreatment;
• the systematic infliction of psychological suffering;
• deprivation of the necessities of life;
• coercion;
• degrading treatment;
• other acts that objectively cause the victim severe physical or psychological suffering.

The commentary on Article 105 published on Zakonpravo.kz associates cruel treatment with ruthless and harsh conduct that causes the victim physical or psychological suffering.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Criminal Liability for Driving a Person to Suicide)

If individual acts simultaneously constitute separate criminal offences, cumulative classification may be considered.

Depending on the specific circumstances, additional offences may include:

• causing bodily harm;
• torture;
• unlawful deprivation of liberty;
• threats;
• extortion;
• offences against sexual inviolability;
• other criminal offences.

13. SYSTEMATIC HUMILIATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY

The word “systematic” is of fundamental importance.

A single conflict or isolated insult should not automatically be treated as constituting the offence under Article 105.

The repeated nature and purpose of the conduct must be established.

Evidence may include:

• multiple messages;
• correspondence;
• audio recordings;
• video recordings;
• witness testimony;
• publications;
• email correspondence;
• documents;
• information concerning repeated conflicts;
• recordings of telephone conversations obtained lawfully;
• information about the victim’s behaviour before and after the relevant events.

The commentary published on Zakonpravo.kz characterizes systematic humiliation of human dignity as prolonged and repeated degrading conduct, including insults, ridicule, bullying, and similar acts.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Criminal Liability for Driving a Person to Suicide)

14. CAUSATION

The causal link is of central importance when classifying conduct as driving a person to suicide.

It is insufficient merely to establish that:

“The person died by suicide after a conflict.”

It must instead be established that:

“The specific actions of the accused or accused persons caused the suicide or attempted suicide.”

This requires the investigation to examine other possible independent causes.

The following circumstances may be examined:

• family circumstances;
• employment-related problems;
• financial difficulties;
• health conditions;
• personal relationships;
• previous suicide attempts;
• psychological condition;
• substance use;
• other material circumstances.

The existence of several contributing factors does not, in itself, exclude criminal liability. The decisive issue is whether a legally relevant causal link can be established between the conduct of the accused and the outcome.

15. MENS REA (SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS)

The mental state of each participant in relation to their conduct must be examined.

In cases involving group criminal conduct, establishing common intent is particularly important.

Each participant must be aware of the material circumstances of the joint conduct.

At the same time, the liability of one participant must not automatically extend to consequences resulting from another participant’s independent conduct.

Article 30 of the Criminal Code establishes the rule concerning excess by an accomplice: if a participant commits a criminal offence that was not covered by the intent of the other accomplices, the latter are not criminally liable for that excess.

Accordingly, where one participant unexpectedly commits an act that substantially exceeds the scope of the common plan without the knowledge of the others, the liability of the remaining participants must be determined separately.

16. EXCESS BY AN ACCOMPLICE

For example:

Three persons agree to systematically humiliate the victim and induce the victim to resign from employment.

One participant, without the knowledge of the others, decides to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim.

If that act was not covered by the common intent, it may constitute a separate criminal offence attributable to the person who directly committed it.

Article 30 of the Criminal Code expressly excludes the criminal liability of other accomplices for such excess.

(Source: Adilet — Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan)

17. CATEGORY OF THE CRIME

Subparagraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 105 provides for a maximum penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of up to five years.

Under Article 11 of the Criminal Code, intentional offences punishable by deprivation of liberty for a maximum term not exceeding five years are classified as medium-gravity crimes.

(Source: Adilet — Article 11 of the Criminal Code)

Accordingly:

An offence under subparagraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code is classified as a medium-gravity crime.

However, this offence must be distinguished from the offence under Part 3 of Article 105.

Where the act is committed against a minor, the penalty is deprivation of liberty for a term of five to nine years, which places the offence in the category of serious crimes.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 105 of the Criminal Code)

18. SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

18.1. Court of First Instance

District courts and courts equated to them act as courts of first instance and hear criminal cases, except for cases assigned by law to specialized courts.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code)

Specialized interdistrict criminal courts hear, among other matters, cases involving particularly serious crimes and specific offences expressly listed by law.

Article 105 of the Criminal Code is not included among the specific offences listed in Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code)

Therefore, a criminal case under subparagraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code generally falls within the jurisdiction of a district court or a court equated to it.

Where the accused is a minor, jurisdiction must be determined taking into account Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning specialized interdistrict juvenile courts.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code)

19. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

As a general rule, a criminal case is heard by the court in whose territorial jurisdiction the criminal offence was committed.

Where an offence began in one location and was completed in another, the special rule established by Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies.

Where the place of commission cannot be established, or offences were committed in different locations, the case is heard by the court in whose territorial jurisdiction the pre-trial investigation was completed.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code)

Territorial jurisdiction in cases under Article 105 may raise complex issues because psychological pressure may be exerted:

• in person;
• by telephone;
• through messaging applications;
• through social networks;
• by email;
• from different regions;
• from outside the Republic of Kazakhstan.

This is particularly important where the Internet is used.

20. COMPETENCE OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AUTHORITIES AND PARTICIPANTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

A criminal case falls within the sphere of criminal proceedings.

The principal participants in the proceedings include:

• the criminal prosecution authority;
• the investigator;
• the inquiry officer, within the limits of their competence;
• the prosecutor;
• the investigating judge;
• the court;
• the public prosecutor;
• the victim;
• the suspect;
• the accused;
• the defendant;
• defence counsel;
• the civil claimant;
• the civil defendant;
• representatives;
• experts;
• specialists;
• witnesses;
• interpreters;
• other participants.

Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code identifies the following among the grounds for commencing a pre-trial investigation: a statement by an individual, a report by an official, a voluntary confession, reports published in the mass media and on online platforms, and a report prepared by an official of a criminal prosecution authority.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code)

21. COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION

Under Article 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a pre-trial investigation is deemed to have commenced upon:

• registration of a statement or report concerning a criminal offence in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (URPI);
• or the performance of the first urgent investigative action in cases provided for by law.

A pre-trial investigation is mandatory in respect of statements and reports concerning criminal offences, except for cases of private prosecution provided for by law.

(Source: Zakon i Pravo — Article 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code)

Article 105 of the Criminal Code does not fall within the typical category of private-prosecution cases.

Accordingly, a person possessing information about a criminal offence is entitled to initiate the relevant procedure by applying to the criminal prosecution authorities.

 22. PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE

In the traditional sense, there is no mandatory pre-trial procedure involving the submission of a formal claim or mediation as a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Article 105 of the Criminal Code.

The victim is not required to first:

• send a formal claim to the perpetrator;
• apply to a court;
• undergo mandatory mediation;
• file a civil claim.

An application reporting a criminal offense may constitute grounds for commencing a pre-trial investigation, provided that the information required by law is available. (Law and Legal Practice)

At the same time, procedural decisions made by the criminal prosecution authority may be appealed in accordance with the procedure established by the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

23. PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCEEDINGS

23.1. The Victim

If a person survives a suicide attempt, that person may be recognized as a victim where the statutory grounds are present.

Article 71 of the CPC provides for the recognition as a victim of a person who has directly suffered moral, physical, or property damage as a result of a criminal offense. (Law and Legal Practice)

The victim has the right to:

• know the substance of the suspicion;
• give testimony;
• submit evidence;
• file motions;
• be represented by a representative;
• bring a civil claim;
• examine the case materials;
• appeal procedural decisions;
• request the provision of security measures;
• participate in court proceedings.

23.2. Where the Victim Has Died

If the incident resulted in the victim's suicide, the rights of the victim are exercised by the deceased person's close relatives, spouse, or surviving husband or wife, in accordance with Article 71 of the CPC. (Law and Legal Practice)

If several persons claim the procedural status of victim, the issue shall be resolved in accordance with the CPC.

24. CIVIL CLAIMANT

A civil claimant is an individual or legal entity that has brought a claim for compensation for property damage or moral harm caused by a criminal offense. (Law and Legal Practice)

In cases under Article 105, potential claims may include:

• compensation for moral harm;
• reimbursement of medical treatment expenses;
• reimbursement of funeral expenses;
• compensation for property damage;
• reimbursement of legal representation expenses;
• reimbursement of other directly related expenses.

Article 166 of the CPC expressly provides for the possibility of considering claims for compensation for property damage and moral harm, as well as expenses related to funeral arrangements, medical treatment, and legal representation, within criminal proceedings. (Law and Legal Practice)

25. CIVIL DEFENDANT

A civil defendant is an individual or legal entity against whom a civil claim has been brought in criminal proceedings.

The civil defendant has the right to:

• know the substance of the claim;
• object to the claim;
• submit evidence;
• file motions;
• be represented by a representative;
• examine the case materials;
• appeal the decision insofar as it concerns the civil claim.

(Law and Legal Practice)

26. DEFENCE COUNSEL

A suspect, accused person, and defendant have the right to a defence.

In cases of this category, defence counsel should pay particular attention to verifying:

1. the lawfulness of the case registration;
2. the legal grounds for recognizing a person as a victim;
3. the substance of the suspicion;
4. the specific actions attributable to each participant;
5. the existence of a prior agreement to commit the offense;
6. the presence of the elements of a criminal group;
7. whether the causal link has been established;
8. the admissibility of electronic evidence;
9. whether expert examinations have been conducted;
10. the correctness of the legal classification of the offense;
11. whether there has been an excess of the limits of the common intent by an accomplice;
12. compliance with procedural time limits;
13. the lawfulness of preventive measures.

27. PROOF

The evidentiary process in cases under Article 105 may be complex because the alleged conduct often involves psychological rather than physical coercion.

Both the objective events and the psychological context must be established.

The principal areas of proof include the following.

A. The Event

• the fact of suicide;
• or the fact of an attempted suicide;
• the time;
• the place;
• the circumstances.

B. The Conduct of the Accused

• threats;
• cruel treatment;
• humiliation;
• incitement to suicide;
• assistance or facilitation.

C. The Group Nature of the Conduct

• the number of participants;
• a prior agreement;
• the allocation of roles;
• coordination of actions;
• common intent.

D. Causation

• the causal link between the conduct and the suicide;
• the absence of circumstances that completely break the causal chain.

E. The Subjective Elements of the Offense

• intent;
• awareness of the nature of the conduct;
• awareness of the joint nature of the actions;
• the participants' attitude toward the consequences.

28. ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

In modern cases under Article 105, the following types of electronic information may be particularly important:

• WhatsApp;
• Telegram;
• Instagram;
• TikTok;
• Facebook;
• email correspondence;
• SMS messages;
• recordings of telephone conversations;
• voice messages;
• video recordings;
• photographs;
• publications;
• comments;
• data stored on electronic devices;
• backup copies;
• call and connection records;
• information from information systems.

However, a screenshot alone may not always reliably establish:

• the author of a message;
• its date;
• its time;
• the device used;
• whether the information has remained unaltered;
• the context of the message;
• its intended recipient.

Accordingly, where the admissibility or authenticity of electronic evidence is disputed, the following measures may be necessary:

• inspection of the device;
• formal recording and preservation of the information;
• a computer forensic examination;
• obtaining relevant data through lawful procedures;
• other procedural measures.

29. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

Article 112 of the CPC provides that factual data obtained through substantial violations of criminal procedure law are inadmissible as evidence.

In particular, evidence may be declared inadmissible if it was obtained:

• through torture;
• through the use of violence;
• through threats;
• through deception;
• through other unlawful acts;
• in circumstances involving a substantial violation of the procedure governing a procedural action;
• from an unknown or unidentifiable source;
• by methods inconsistent with contemporary scientific knowledge.

(Law and Legal Practice)

These requirements are particularly important in cases involving psychological pressure with respect to:

• audio recordings;
• covert recordings;
• digital correspondence;
• materials obtained through operational-search activities;
• results of covert investigative actions.

30. TESTIMONY OF THE SUSPECT

A confession, by itself, is insufficient to establish guilt.

Under Article 115 of the CPC, a suspect's admission of guilt may form the basis of an accusation only where the person's guilt is corroborated by the totality of the evidence. (Law and Legal Practice)

Therefore, an admission such as:

"Yes, we all bullied him"

does not eliminate the need to establish:

• who specifically acted;
• when the conduct occurred;
• what each person did;
• the purpose of the conduct;
• how the participants reached an agreement;
• what each participant understood;
• which consequences were encompassed by each participant's intent.

31. ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE

Article 125 of the CPC provides that each item of evidence must be assessed in terms of:

• relevance;
• admissibility;
• reliability.

The totality of the evidence must be assessed in terms of its sufficiency.

Evidence is considered reliable after its consistency with the actual facts has been verified. The body of evidence must establish all relevant circumstances without doubt and in an unequivocal manner. (Law and Legal Practice)

This is particularly important when establishing psychological causation.

For example, the testimony of a single witness stating:

"I think the victim took his own life because of them"

is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a causal link.

It is necessary to determine the source of the witness's knowledge and compare the testimony with other evidence.

32. PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATIONS

Depending on the circumstances of the case, the following examinations may be relevant:

• forensic psychological examination;
• forensic psychiatric examination;
• comprehensive forensic psychological and psychiatric examination.

However, an expert must not replace the court in deciding the question:

"Is the accused guilty?"

Experts may be asked specialized questions concerning the victim's mental state, ability to perceive the alleged psychological pressure, characteristics of the victim's emotional condition, and other circumstances requiring specialized knowledge.

The court is responsible for resolving the legal questions concerning the existence of the elements of the offense and the causal link in the criminal-law sense.

33. PROVING A PRIOR AGREEMENT

In practice, the following circumstances may be examined:

• messages exchanged between the accused;
• joint telephone calls;
• meetings;
• agreements;
• allocation of roles;
• joint actions;
• instructions given by one participant to another;
• coordination of the timing of actions;
• the participants' conduct after the incident;
• attempts to conceal traces of the offense;
• joint deletion of correspondence;
• coordinated accounts of what occurred.

However, conduct after the offense does not, by itself, automatically establish the existence of a prior agreement.

Such conduct may have evidentiary significance only when considered together with other circumstances.

34. PRIOR AGREEMENT AND THE TIME AT WHICH IT WAS REACHED

The following situations must be distinguished.

Scenario 1

The individuals agreed in advance:

"We will humiliate the victim every day until he agrees to take his own life."

If the remaining elements are also established, the conduct may potentially fall within the concept of an offense committed by a group of persons acting pursuant to a prior agreement.

Scenario 2

One person initiated a conflict, and another joined several days later, understanding what was happening.

It is necessary to establish when the second person joined and the content of that person's intent.

Scenario 3

A second person happened to witness the events and did not participate in any way.

Mere presence does not constitute complicity in a criminal offense.

35. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 30 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE: EXCESS BY AN ACCOMPLICE

If a group agreed only to make threats, but one participant independently committed serious violence, it is necessary to determine whether that violence was covered by the common intent.

Article 30 of the Criminal Code expressly provides for the exemption of other accomplices from criminal liability for an excess committed by one participant. (Adilet)

This may be of substantial importance when determining the proper legal classification of multiple criminal offenses.

36. JUDICIAL PRACTICE CONCERNING GROUP CRIME

No specifically published review by the Supreme Court devoted exclusively to subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan could be identified in the available zakonpravo.kz database.

Accordingly, legal analysis should draw on the Supreme Court's general guidance concerning:

• complicity in criminal offenses;
• offenses against life and health;
• criminal judgments;
• civil claims;
• the assessment of evidence.

The Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 20, 2018, No. 4, "On the Court Judgment," is particularly important.

It states that where a criminal offense has been committed by a group of persons, a group of persons acting pursuant to a prior agreement, or an organized group, the judgment must describe the specific criminal acts committed by each defendant. (Law and Legal Practice)

The Supreme Court also requires the evidence relating to each defendant and each charge to be examined individually. (Law and Legal Practice)

37. PRACTICAL EXAMPLE NO. 1 — PRIOR AGREEMENT

Hypothetical situation

A. and B. agreed in advance to systematically humiliate C.

A.:

• sent threatening messages;
• published humiliating messages.

B.:

• called the victim;
• threatened to disclose personal information;
• organized other individuals to continue the pressure.

Subsequently, the victim attempted suicide.

If the investigation establishes:

• a prior agreement;
• common intent;
• the conduct of each participant;
• the systematic nature of the conduct;
• a causal link;
• the fact of attempted suicide,

classification under subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code may be considered.

38. PRACTICAL EXAMPLE NO. 2 — NO PROVEN PRIOR AGREEMENT

A. had a conflict with the victim.

One month later, B., who knew nothing about A.'s conflict with the victim, independently became involved in an argument with the victim.

Afterward, the victim attempted suicide.

The existence of two separate conflicts does not, in itself, establish that the offense was committed by:

"a group of persons acting pursuant to a prior agreement."

The investigation must establish actual coordination between the participants.

If there is no evidence of a prior agreement, the aggravating element may remain unproven.

39. PRACTICAL EXAMPLE NO. 3 — CRIMINAL GROUP

Suppose there is a stable organized group established in advance for the purpose of committing multiple criminal offenses.

Within the group's activities, one victim is subjected to systematic psychological pressure.

In such a case, it is necessary to prove:

1. the actual existence of the criminal group;
2. its stability;
3. its objectives;
4. its structure;
5. the roles of its members;
6. the accused's membership in the group;
7. the accused's participation in the specific offense;
8. that the relevant offense was covered by the participant's intent.

Mere acquaintance with members of an organized criminal group is insufficient.

40. STATE DUTY

The issue of state duty must be distinguished according to the following categories:

1. criminal prosecution;
2. a civil claim within criminal proceedings;
3. an independent civil claim.

Where a civil claim is brought directly within criminal proceedings, the claimant is exempt from paying state duty.

This is expressly provided for in part 3 of Article 167 of the CPC. (Law and Legal Practice)

The Supreme Court's regulatory resolution also states that a claimant is exempt from paying state duty when bringing a civil claim in criminal proceedings. (Law and Legal Practice)

Accordingly, the victim is not required to pay state duty in advance to bring a civil claim within criminal proceedings.

41. CIVIL CLAIM IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

A civil claim may be brought:

from the commencement of the pre-trial investigation until the end of the judicial investigation.

This is expressly provided for in Article 167 of the CPC. (Law and Legal Practice)

In cases resulting in death, a civil claim may be brought by the deceased person's close relatives, spouse, or surviving husband or wife who exercise the rights of the victim. (Law and Legal Practice)

42. CONTENTS OF A CIVIL CLAIM

The claim must contain sufficient information to identify:

• the claimant;
• the defendant;
• the legal and factual basis of the claim;
• the circumstances in which the harm was caused;
• the amount of property damage;
• the amount of moral harm compensation sought;
• the supporting evidence;
• the causal link;
• the specific expenses claimed.

Examples include the following.

Material damage:

• medical treatment expenses;
• medication costs;
• medical rehabilitation expenses;
• transportation expenses;
• funeral expenses;
• other documented expenses.

Moral harm:

• emotional distress;
• mental suffering;
• the consequences of losing a loved one;
• the consequences of a suicide attempt;
• substantial changes in one's way of life;
• other relevant circumstances.

43. DECISION ON THE CIVIL CLAIM

Under Article 170 of the CPC, the court may:

1. grant the claim in full;
2. grant the claim in part;
3. dismiss the claim;
4. recognize the right to satisfaction of the claim and refer the issue of the amount to civil proceedings;
5. accept the withdrawal of the claim;
6. approve a settlement agreement or mediation agreement;
7. leave the claim without consideration.

(Law and Legal Practice)

The Supreme Court's regulatory resolution also emphasizes the need to establish:

• guilt;
• the causal link;
• the nature of the harm;
• the amount of the harm;
• the person liable to compensate for it.

(Law and Legal Practice)

44. TIME LIMIT FOR BRINGING A CIVIL CLAIM IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

This must be distinguished from the limitation period applicable to civil claims.

In criminal proceedings, a civil claim may be brought until the end of the judicial investigation. (Law and Legal Practice)

Therefore, the statement:

"The victim must bring a civil claim within three years"

cannot automatically be applied to a claim brought directly within criminal proceedings.

The general three-year limitation period is established by Article 178 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It concerns civil-law limitation periods and is distinct from the procedural deadline for bringing a civil claim in criminal proceedings. (Law and Legal Practice)

45. WHERE A CIVIL CLAIM IS BROUGHT SEPARATELY

If the victim did not bring a civil claim in criminal proceedings, or if the claim was left without consideration, the law permits the person, in the circumstances provided for by law, to bring a claim under the civil procedure rules.

Article 166 of the CPC expressly provides that failure to bring a civil claim in criminal proceedings does not deprive a person of the right to bring a claim under civil procedure. (Law and Legal Practice)

In this regard, the following must be taken into account:

• the rules governing limitation periods;
• special limitation periods applicable to particular claims;
• the date on which the limitation period begins to run;
• suspension of the limitation period;
• interruption of the limitation period;
• grounds for restoring the limitation period.

46. GENERAL LIMITATION PERIOD

Article 178 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes a general limitation period of three years.

Special limitation periods may apply to certain claims. (Law and Legal Practice)

Accordingly, where an independent civil claim is brought, the legal nature of the claim must first be determined.

The three-year limitation period cannot automatically be applied to every claim connected with a criminal offense.

47. RESTORATION OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD

Article 185 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides for the possibility of restoring a limitation period in exceptional circumstances.

A court may recognize circumstances relating to the claimant personally as valid reasons, including:

• serious illness;
• a helpless condition;
• illiteracy;
• other similar circumstances.

Particular importance attaches to the requirement that such circumstances must have existed during the final six months of the limitation period, unless a different procedure is established by law. (Law and Legal Practice)

In cases involving suicide, this may be practically relevant where the victim or the deceased person's close relatives were in a severe psychological or other condition that affected their ability to bring a claim.

However, emotional distress alone does not automatically justify restoration of the limitation period. The court assesses the specific circumstances and supporting evidence.

48. LIMITATION PERIOD FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

This is an entirely separate legal concept.

Under Article 71 of the Criminal Code:

• criminal misdemeanors — 1 year;
• minor offenses — 2 years;
• offenses of medium gravity — 5 years;
• serious offenses — 10 years;
• especially serious offenses — 15 years.

The period is calculated from the date on which the criminal offense was committed until the judgment enters into legal force. (Adilet)

Since the offense under subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 105 is classified as an offense of medium gravity, the general limitation period for bringing a person to criminal liability is five years.

49. SUSPENSION OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD

If a person evades the investigation or the court, the limitation period is suspended.

It resumes from the date of:

• the person's arrest; or
• the person's voluntary appearance and confession.

For an offense of medium gravity, the legislation also establishes a special maximum period in cases of evasion: ten years. (Adilet)

50. TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS DUE TO EXPIRATION OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD

Where the limitation period has expired, criminal proceedings may be terminated.

The Supreme Court's Regulatory Resolution "On the Court Judgment" explains that, upon expiration of the limitation period, proceedings are subject to termination, including at the preliminary hearing stage or during the main court proceedings. (Law and Legal Practice)

However, if the defendant objects to termination on a non-exonerating ground, the proceedings may continue in accordance with the procedure established by law.

 51. RECONCILIATION

At first glance, an offense of medium gravity may fall within the scope of Article 68 of the Criminal Code, which provides for exemption from criminal liability in connection with reconciliation.

However, there is a fundamental obstacle in relation to subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 105.

Article 68 of the Criminal Code provides for exemption from criminal liability for criminal offenses and crimes of minor or medium gravity not associated with causing death, provided that the parties reconcile and the harm caused is remedied.

Furthermore, part 4 of Article 68 expressly excludes the application of reconciliation to crimes committed as part of a criminal group.

Accordingly, two situations must be distinguished.

Scenario 1

Subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 105 — an act committed by a group of persons acting in prior collusion, where the victim attempted suicide but survived.

In principle, the application of Article 68 may be considered in this situation, provided that all other statutory requirements are satisfied.

Scenario 2

The act was committed specifically as part of a criminal group.

In this case, pursuant to subparagraph 7) of part 4 of Article 68, exemption from criminal liability on the grounds of reconciliation is excluded.

52. RECONCILIATION AND MEDIATION

The victim has the right to reconcile with the suspect, accused, or defendant, including through mediation, provided that such reconciliation is permitted under criminal law.

The regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan concerning the application of Article 68 states that reconciliation must be genuine and the harm caused must be remedied.

At the same time, the existence of a formal written statement reading:

“I have no claims”

does not necessarily establish that all statutory requirements have been met.

The following circumstances must be established:

• whether the reconciliation is genuine;
• whether it is voluntary;
• whether the harm caused has been remedied;
• whether there are any objections from persons whose consent is legally required;
• whether any circumstances precluding the application of Article 68 exist.

53. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 68 WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE VICTIMS

Where a criminal offense directly causes harm to several victims, the issue of reconciliation must be resolved with due regard to the procedural status of each victim.

The regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court states that if reconciliation is not achieved with at least one victim, exemption from criminal liability on the relevant grounds may not be granted.

54. PROCEDURAL COERCIVE MEASURES

The Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (CPC) provides for a system of procedural coercive measures.

Article 155 of the CPC identifies the following as other procedural coercive measures:

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

An undertaking to appear, compulsory attendance, and a monetary penalty may be imposed on a victim, witness, or other persons in cases provided for by law.

55. PROHIBITION ON APPROACHING A PERSON

In cases involving psychological abuse, a prohibition on approaching the victim may be of particular practical importance.

Such a measure may be used to:

• protect the victim;
• prevent repeated psychological pressure;
• prevent intimidation or other forms of undue influence;
• prevent contact with the victim;
• protect witnesses.

This is particularly relevant where the accused and the victim:

• are spouses;
• live in close proximity;
• work together;
• study together;
• are connected through property relations.

56. PREVENTIVE MEASURES

Article 136 of the CPC establishes the grounds for imposing preventive measures.

Such measures may be applied where there are sufficient grounds to believe that the suspect or accused may:

• abscond;
• obstruct the investigation;
• continue criminal activity;
• otherwise interfere with the proceedings;
• evade execution of the judgment.

When selecting a preventive measure, the possibility of applying a less restrictive measure must also be considered.

57. REMAND IN CUSTODY

Article 136 of the CPC contains a list of criminal offenses in respect of which detention in custody may be imposed on grounds relating to the gravity of the offense and its legal classification.

Article 105 of the Criminal Code is not included in this special list.

Consequently, where a person is charged under subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 105, the mere reference to the seriousness of the charge is insufficient to justify automatic remand in custody.

The grounds prescribed by the CPC must be established.

Article 138 of the CPC requires consideration of the following circumstances:

• the gravity of the offense;
• the person's character and personal circumstances;
• age;
• state of health;
• family circumstances;
• social ties;
• reputation;
• employment;
• property;
• place of residence;
• other relevant circumstances.

In the absence of the grounds specified in Article 136 of the CPC, the gravity of the offense cannot, by itself, serve as the sole basis for detention in custody.

58. HOUSE ARREST

House arrest is a less restrictive alternative to detention in custody.

In its Regulatory Resolution No. 9 of April 11, 2023, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan emphasized the need to respect a person's constitutional rights when imposing house arrest, including the right to defense and the right to qualified legal assistance.

In cases under Article 105 of the Criminal Code, house arrest may be particularly relevant where there is a risk of contact between the accused and the victim.

59. COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE

Where a suspect, accused, victim, or witness fails to appear in response to a summons without a valid reason, compulsory attendance may be ordered.

Article 157 of the CPC regulates:

• the grounds for compulsory attendance;
• the procedure for its execution;
• the time of execution;
• applicable restrictions;
• categories of persons who may not be subjected to compulsory attendance.

A victim may also be subjected to compulsory attendance where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

60. MONETARY PENALTY

Article 160 of the CPC provides for the imposition of a monetary penalty by a court.

Where a procedural violation occurs during pre-trial proceedings, the relevant report is submitted to the investigating judge, who considers it in accordance with the established procedure.

The monetary penalty may amount to up to fifty monthly calculation indices (MCI), as provided by law.

61. SEIZURE OF PROPERTY

Property may be seized for the purpose of securing:

• a civil claim;
• confiscation;
• potential compensation for harm caused.

In cases involving a substantial civil claim, the victim's legal representative may request the imposition of interim measures to secure the claim.

At the same time, the defense is entitled to challenge any unjustified restriction of property rights.

62. MEASURES TO ENSURE THE VICTIM'S SAFETY

Given the nature of the offense, the victim may be exposed to:

• repeated pressure;
• threats;
• attempts to persuade the victim to change their testimony;
• psychological influence;
• stalking;
• pressure exerted through relatives.

The victim has the right to request the implementation of safety measures.

63. CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND MULTIPLICITY OF OFFENSES

Article 105 of the Criminal Code may overlap with other criminal offenses.

For example, if the conduct used to drive a person to suicide simultaneously constitutes an independent criminal offense, the issue of cumulative qualification may arise.

A published commentary on zakonpravo.kz identifies the following as examples of potentially independent offenses:

• torture or cruel treatment, depending on the applicable statutory elements;
• causing bodily harm;
• unlawful deprivation of liberty;
• rape;
• extortion;
• other offenses.

The final legal classification depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

64. DISTINGUISHING THE OFFENSE FROM MURDER

This is a matter of fundamental importance.

If the accused directly performed acts aimed at depriving the victim of life, it is necessary to examine whether the elements of murder are present.

Article 105 addresses a specific situation in which the victim personally performs acts intended to end their own life or attempts to do so.

Accordingly, the investigation must establish:

• the immediate mechanism of death;
• the victim's intention;
• the actions of the accused persons;
• the causal link;
• the form of guilt.

65. DISTINGUISHING DRIVING A PERSON TO SUICIDE FROM INCITEMENT TO SUICIDE

Incitement to suicide is distinguished by the active formation in the victim of an intention to take their own life.

Depending on the circumstances, this may involve:

• persuasion;
• persistent suggestions;
• psychological influence;
• instructions;
• presenting suicide as a way out of a situation.

In cases involving multiple participants, it is necessary to establish who specifically incited the victim, who created the relevant conditions, who reinforced the victim's intention, and who provided means or information.

66. DISTINGUISHING INCITEMENT FROM ASSISTANCE

Assistance involves helping a person carry out an act of suicide.

Depending on the specific circumstances, such conduct may include:

• providing the necessary means;
• providing information;
• removing obstacles;
• arranging the conditions for the act;
• providing other forms of deliberate assistance.

The precise wording of Article 105 of the Criminal Code must be taken into account, and the specific form of participation must be established by evidence.

67. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STANDARDS

The legal framework must be considered in light of Kazakhstan's international obligations.

Article 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides that criminal legislation is based on the Constitution and the generally recognized principles and norms of international law.

Furthermore, the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Legal Acts establishes the priority of ratified international treaties over laws. Such treaties apply directly unless the treaty itself requires the adoption of a specific implementing law.

68. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Kazakhstan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Law No. 91 of November 28, 2005.

Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 10, 2008, directs courts to apply the provisions of the ICCPR where appropriate.

The following provisions are particularly important for the category of cases under consideration.

Article 6 of the ICCPR

The right to life of every human being.

Article 7

The prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 9

The right to liberty and security of person.

Article 14

The right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

The Supreme Court's Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of July 10, 2008, specifically emphasizes the significance of Article 14 of the ICCPR in ensuring the right to a fair trial.

69. RIGHTS OF MINORS

Where the victim is a minor, the application of part 3 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code must be considered.

This substantially changes the legal position:

• the applicable penalty ranges from five to nine years of imprisonment;
• the offense falls within the category of serious crimes;
• the limitation period changes;
• the application of reconciliation provisions becomes significantly more restricted;
• the requirements for protecting the minor become more stringent;
• the issue of jurisdiction may change where the accused is also a minor.

Under Article 307 of the CPC, the specialized inter-district juvenile court hears criminal cases against minors within the scope of jurisdiction established by law.

70. CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

In criminal cases involving minors, international standards for the protection of children must be taken into account, including the following provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child:

• Article 6 — the right to life;
• Article 19 — protection from physical or mental violence;
• Article 3 — the best interests of the child as a primary consideration;
• Article 12 — the child's right to be heard.

These provisions must be considered together with the national criminal and criminal procedure legislation.

71. SUBORDINATE REGULATORY LEGAL ACTS

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 480-V of April 6, 2016, On Legal Acts, is of particular practical importance.

It defines a subordinate regulatory legal act as a regulatory act that:

• is not a law;
• is issued on the basis of a law;
• is adopted to implement a law; or
• serves to further implement a law or higher-ranking regulatory legal acts.

72. HIERARCHY OF REGULATORY LEGAL ACTS

Article 10 of the Law on Legal Acts establishes the hierarchy of regulatory legal acts.

In particular:

1. The Constitution;
2. laws amending the Constitution;
3. constitutional laws;
4. codes;
5. consolidated laws and other laws;
6. regulatory resolutions of Parliament;
7. regulatory decrees of the President;
8. regulatory resolutions of the Government;
9. regulatory orders of ministers and other central government bodies;
10. regulatory orders of heads of departments;
11. regulatory decisions of maslikhats and other local-level acts.

A lower-ranking regulatory act must not contradict a higher-ranking act.

73. REGULATORY RESOLUTIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

Regulatory resolutions of the Supreme Court have a special legal status.

Article 10 of the Law on Legal Acts expressly provides that regulatory resolutions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court fall outside the hierarchy of regulatory legal acts established by that article.

The following instruments are particularly important for the subject under consideration:

1. Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 11, 2007, On the Classification of Certain Criminal Offenses Against Human Life and Health;
2. Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court dated April 20, 2018, On the Court Judgment;
3. Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court dated June 21, 2001, concerning the application of Article 68 of the Criminal Code;
4. Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court dated June 20, 2005, On the Consideration of Civil Claims in Criminal Proceedings;
5. Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court dated July 10, 2008, On the Application of the Norms of International Treaties of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

74. REGULATORY RESOLUTION NO. 1 OF THE SUPREME COURT ON CRIMES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE AND HEALTH

Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of May 11, 2007, is one of the principal sources of judicial interpretation concerning criminal offenses against human life and health.

For the case under consideration, the provisions concerning the need to establish the following are particularly important:

• the form of guilt;
• the type of intent;
• motive;
• purpose;
• method;
• circumstances;
• stage of the offense;
• consequences;
• the identity and personal characteristics of the offender.

Although a substantial part of the resolution concerns murder and bodily injury, its methodological principles may also be used when analyzing offenses against life, particularly in establishing the form of guilt and the causal relationship.

75. REGULATORY RESOLUTION NO. 4 OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE COURT JUDGMENT

This is one of the most important instruments at the trial stage.

A court may not base a conviction on assumptions.

A judgment must be based on a sufficient body of reliable and duly established evidence.

The court must examine contradictions and assess both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.

Where there are several defendants, the evidence must be analyzed separately in relation to each defendant.

76. PRACTICAL CHECKLIST FOR THE PROSECUTION

To establish the elements of subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code, the following matters must be examined.

As to the incident:

□ A suicide occurred;

or

□ An actual suicide attempt occurred.

As to the conduct:

□ A threat was established;

or

□ Cruel treatment was established;

or

□ Systematic humiliation of human dignity was established;

or

□ Incitement to suicide was established;

or

□ Assistance was established.

As to causation:

□ A causal link between the conduct and the outcome was established.

As to group participation:

□ At least two participants were involved;

□ Joint conduct was established;

□ Common intent was established;

□ Prior collusion was proven;

or

□ The existence of a criminal group was proven.

As to each participant individually:

□ The specific act was established;

□ The specific role was established;

□ The specific intent was established;

□ The connection with the common plan was established.

77. DEFENSE CHECKLIST

The defense should examine the following issues:

1. Was the fact of suicide actually established?
2. Was the alleged attempt genuine and objectively real?
3. Did the victim intend to take their own life?
4. What specific actions did each accused person perform?
5. When did the prior agreement arise?
6. What evidence establishes the agreement?
7. In what form was the agreement reached?
8. What did the common intent encompass?
9. Did any participant act beyond the scope of the common intent?
10. Was systematic conduct established?
11. Was the alleged threat proven?
12. Was cruel treatment proven?
13. Was humiliation of human dignity proven?
14. Was the causal link proven?
15. Could there have been an independent cause of the suicide?
16. Were electronic evidence and digital records obtained lawfully?
17. Are the recordings of conversations admissible as evidence?
18. Are there grounds for ordering an expert examination?
19. Are there contradictions between witness statements?
20. Does the charge satisfy the requirements for individualizing each person's conduct?
21. Was the correct part of Article 105 applied?
22. Should a different criminal offense be considered?
23. Is there a basis for cumulative qualification?
24. Has the limitation period expired?
25. Are there grounds for terminating the proceedings?
26. Is the preventive measure lawful?
27. Were the defense counsel's rights respected?
28. Were the victim's rights respected?

78. THE PROBLEM OF PROVING PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCE

The principal difficulty in such cases is that psychological influence is rarely documented in a single piece of evidence.

Evidence is generally established through a combination of:

• correspondence and messages;
• witness statements;
• the victim's behavior;
• medical records;
• digital traces;
• audio recordings;
• video recordings;
• expert examinations;
• events preceding the attempt;
• events occurring after the attempt.

Therefore, it is insufficient for the investigation to produce only a few emotionally charged messages.

It is necessary to reconstruct the sequence of events.

79. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

In cases under Article 105 of the Criminal Code, preparing a chronological table of events is particularly useful.

Such a reconstruction enables the court to establish not only whether individual events occurred, but also whether they were interconnected.

80. THE KEY QUESTION IS NOT SIMPLY WHETHER THE PARTICIPANTS ACTED TOGETHER

For qualification under subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code, the following question must be answered:

Did the individuals act pursuant to a single criminal intent, or did their actions merely coincide in time and objectively produce similar effects?

This distinction is fundamental.

If only the latter is established, the aggravating element of prior collusion may not be proven.

 Перевожу разделы 81–105 на английский язык в официально-юридическом стиле, сохраняя структуру документа, нумерацию, ссылки на статьи УК РК, УПК РК и ГК РК, нормативные постановления и правовые формулировки.

81. PRACTICAL MODEL FOR FORMULATING A CHARGE

A properly formulated charge should be individualized approximately as follows:

“A., acting intentionally, jointly and in collusion in advance with B., having agreed to exert systematic psychological pressure on C., committed ... during the period from ... to ..., while B. ... . These actions formed part of a single plan and resulted in ... .”

Each allegation must be supported by evidence.

82. INCORRECT FORMULATION

The following formulation is insufficient:

“A. and B. jointly drove C. to suicide.”

Without further detail, such a formulation may fail to disclose:

• the mechanism of the criminal offence;
• the form of complicity;
• the actions of each individual;
• the causal link;
• the subjective elements of the offence.

For this reason, Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan requires the actions of each defendant to be individualized.

83. CIVIL CLAIMS INVOLVING MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS

Where a civil claim is brought against several persons, the court must determine the nature of their civil liability.

Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan states that, when a case involving several defendants is considered, the judgment must provide reasons for determining whether recovery is to be made on a joint and several basis or on a proportionate basis.

Accordingly, it is advisable not to limit the claim to the following wording:

“Recover the amount from the defendants.”

Instead, it is necessary to substantiate:

• the legal basis of liability;
• the nature of the liability;
• the harm caused by each person;
• the existence of grounds for joint and several or proportionate recovery.

84. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF A CIVIL CLAIM

Even while criminal proceedings are ongoing, a civil claim may follow an independent procedural course.

Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the “CPC”) permits the approval of a settlement agreement or an agreement to resolve a dispute through mediation in respect of a civil claim.

However, this does not mean that the criminal prosecution will automatically be terminated.

The criminal-law issue must be resolved separately, taking into account Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the “CC”) and other applicable provisions.

85. TERMINATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Article 36 of the CPC provides for circumstances in which criminal prosecution may not be pursued.

In such cases, the suspect, accused or defendant must be informed of:

• the grounds for termination;
• the legal consequences;
• the right to object to the termination.

Termination on the relevant non-exonerating grounds is not permitted if the persons entitled to object under the law oppose it.

86. TERMINATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BY THE COURT

Article 327 of the CPC provides for the termination of criminal proceedings by the court, either at the preliminary hearing or during the main court proceedings, on the relevant statutory grounds.

When proceedings are terminated, the court must also resolve matters concerning:

• preventive measures;
• measures to secure a civil claim;
• physical evidence;
• security measures;
• other procedural consequences.

87. THE ADVERSARIAL PRINCIPLE

Court proceedings are based on the adversarial principle and the equality of the parties.

The CPC allows suspects, accused persons and defendants to deny or admit their guilt, reconcile in cases provided for by law, and use the procedural mechanisms available for their defence.

In defending a person accused under Article 105 of the CC, this includes the ability to:

• challenge the legal classification of the conduct;
• challenge the causal link;
• challenge the alleged form of complicity;
• raise objections concerning the inadmissibility of evidence;
• submit evidence on behalf of the defence;
• file motions for expert examinations;
• question witnesses;
• examine digital evidence.

88. PROCEDURAL EXPENSES

When a civil claim is considered, expenses provided for by law may be recovered, including expenses incurred for legal representation.

Article 166 of the CPC expressly includes expenses incurred in connection with participation in an inquiry, preliminary investigation and court proceedings, including representation expenses, among the claims considered in criminal proceedings.

89. SPECIFIC FEATURES OF CASES INVOLVING THE INTERNET

Subparagraph 4) of Part 2 of Article 105 of the CC expressly addresses the use of telecommunications networks and information technology facilities, including the Internet.

Where both the group-related qualifying circumstance and the use of the Internet are present, both qualifying circumstances must be reflected in the charge.

However, this does not mean that penalties are mechanically added together for each qualifying circumstance.

The conduct must be classified under the relevant part of Article 105 of the CC, rather than by imposing a separate penalty for each qualifying circumstance.

90. THE COMBINATION OF GROUP-RELATED CONDUCT AND INTERNET-BASED PRESSURE

For example:

A. and B. agree in advance to systematically humiliate the victim.

A. publishes messages on the Internet.

B. distributes those messages through messaging applications.

If the following circumstances are proven:

• prior agreement;
• joint participation;
• use of the Internet;
• the relevant method of exerting pressure;

the issue may arise of classifying the conduct under several qualifying circumstances provided for in Part 2 of Article 105 of the CC.

The court must, however, establish the precise role of each participant.

91. A SPECIAL ISSUE: A “CRIMINAL GROUP” IS NOT THE SAME AS A “GROUP OF PERSONS”

This distinction is fundamental to the application of criminal law.

Where two persons agree in advance to commit a specific criminal offence, this constitutes:

a group of persons acting in prior conspiracy.

A stable structure established in advance for the purpose of committing one or more criminal offences constitutes:

an organized group, which, in the circumstances provided for by law, falls within the concept of a criminal group.

The investigative authorities must therefore select the correct qualifying circumstance.

The concept of a criminal group must not be interpreted expansively.

92. ORGANIZED GROUP

Article 3 of the CC defines an organized group as a stable group of two or more persons who have united in advance for the purpose of committing one or more criminal offences.

The principal characteristics are:

• stability;
• two or more persons;
• prior unification;
• a criminal purpose.

The question of stability must be determined on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case.

93. EVIDENCE OF THE STABILITY OF A GROUP

The following circumstances may be relevant:

• continuity of the group’s membership;
• distribution of roles;
• the existence of a leader;
• the duration of interaction;
• repeated criminal activity;
• advance planning;
• means of communication;
• material resources;
• a common plan;
• joint concealment of traces of the offence.

However, none of these characteristics should be considered in isolation.

94. LIMITATION PERIODS AND PROCEDURAL TIME LIMITS

The following must be distinguished:

1. Limitation period for criminal prosecution

For Part 2 of Article 105, the limitation period is five years, since the offence is classified as a medium-gravity criminal offence.

2. Time limit for filing a civil claim in criminal proceedings

A civil claim may be filed before the conclusion of the judicial investigation.

3. Limitation period for an independent civil claim

The general limitation period is three years, unless otherwise provided by special legislation.

4. Restoration of the civil limitation period

In exceptional circumstances, restoration may be possible under Article 185 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

95. PRACTICAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE VICTIM

1. File a report concerning the criminal offence.
2. Seek registration of the information in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (URPI), where the statutory grounds are present.
3. Seek formal recognition as a victim.
4. File motions requesting the necessary investigative actions.
5. Ensure the preservation of electronic correspondence.
6. Identify witnesses.
7. Submit medical records.
8. File a civil claim.
9. Where necessary, apply for measures to secure the claim.
10. If threats have been made, request appropriate security measures.
11. Where the legal grounds exist, request a prohibition on approaching the victim.
12. Where necessary, apply for an expert examination.
13. Verify the legal classification under Part 2 of Article 105 of the CC.
14. Where there are several accused persons, insist that the actions of each person be individually specified.

96. PRACTICAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE DEFENCE

1. Obtain a copy of the decision recognizing the person as a suspect or another procedural document defining the substance of the suspicion.
2. Identify the specific qualifying circumstance alleged.
3. Examine the factual basis for the alleged prior conspiracy.
4. Establish when the alleged conspiracy arose.
5. Examine the individual role of each person.
6. Examine the digital evidence.
7. File motions requesting verification of its authenticity.
8. Examine the admissibility of the evidence.
9. Examine the causal link.
10. Examine whether there were other causes of the suicide.
11. Examine the experts’ conclusions.
12. Verify compliance with the procedures for questioning.
13. Examine the legality of operational-investigative materials.
14. Examine whether a participant exceeded the scope of the common criminal intent.
15. Consider whether a different legal classification is possible.
16. Check the limitation period.
17. Examine the grounds for terminating the proceedings.
18. Examine the lawfulness of the preventive measure.
19. Where necessary, raise objections under civil law.
20. In court, require an individualized assessment of the evidence concerning each defendant.

97. PRINCIPAL LEGISLATIVE ACTS TO BE USED

Criminal legislation

Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (CC):

• Article 1 — Criminal legislation;
• Article 3 — Basic concepts;
• Article 11 — Categories of criminal offences;
• Article 27 — Complicity in a criminal offence;
• Article 28 — Types of accomplices;
• Article 29 — Liability of accomplices;
• Article 30 — Excess of an accomplice beyond the scope of the common intent;
• Article 31 — Criminal offences committed by a group;
• Article 54 — Circumstances aggravating criminal liability and punishment;
• Article 68 — Reconciliation;
• Article 71 — Limitation periods;
• Article 105 — Basic elements of the relevant criminal offence.

Article 31 is particularly important when determining whether the group-related qualifying circumstance applies.

98. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

The principal provisions are:

• Article 23 — Adversarial proceedings and equality of the parties;
• Article 25 — Assessment of evidence;
• Article 36 — Circumstances permitting criminal prosecution not to be pursued;
• Article 64 — Suspect;
• Article 65 — Accused person;
• Article 70 — Defence counsel;
• Article 71 — Victim;
• Article 73 — Civil claimant;
• Article 74 — Civil defendant;
• Article 112 — Factual data inadmissible as evidence;
• Article 115 — Testimony;
• Article 125 — Assessment of evidence;
• Article 136 — Preventive measures;
• Article 138 — Circumstances relevant to the selection of a preventive measure;
• Article 155 — Other measures of procedural coercion;
• Article 157 — Compulsory appearance;
• Article 160 — Monetary penalty;
• Articles 166–170 — Civil claims;
• Article 179 — Commencement of pre-trial investigation;
• Article 180 — Grounds for commencing an investigation;
• Article 306 — Criminal cases within the jurisdiction of district and equivalent courts;
• Article 307 — Juvenile courts;
• Article 308 — Specialized inter-district criminal court;
• Article 314 — Territorial jurisdiction;
• Article 327 — Termination of criminal proceedings;
• Article 343 — Termination of proceedings during the main court hearing.

99. CIVIL CODE

When considering a civil claim, the following provisions must be taken into account:

• provisions concerning compensation for harm;
• provisions concerning moral damage;
• provisions governing obligations arising from the infliction of harm;
• Article 178 — General limitation period;
• Article 179 — Application of the limitation period;
• Article 180 — Commencement of the limitation period;
• provisions concerning suspension and interruption of the limitation period;
• Article 185 — Restoration of the limitation period.

The general limitation period is three years. However, any special rules applicable to the particular claim must be examined.

100. LAW ON LEGAL ACTS

The principal provisions are:

• Article 1 — Definitions;
• Article 4 — Integrity of legislation;
• Article 6 — International treaties;
• Article 10 — Hierarchy of regulatory legal acts;
• Article 11 — Direct application;
• Article 18 — Drafting and coordination of subordinate regulatory legal acts;
• Article 34 — Determination of the procedure for adoption;
• Article 35 — Persons authorized to sign regulatory legal acts.

Article 18 establishes procedures for drafting and coordinating subordinate regulatory legal acts, including the participation of interested authorities and public discussion of relevant draft acts.

101. PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE AND INTERPRETATIVE LEGAL ACTS

For the practical application of Article 105 of the CC, the following acts should primarily be taken into account.

1. Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11 May 2007

“On the Classification of Certain Criminal Offences Against Human Life and Health.”

2. Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 April 2018

“On the Court Judgment.”

3. 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.”

4. 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.”

5. Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 10 July 2008

“On the Application of the Provisions of International Treaties of the Republic of Kazakhstan.”

6. Regulatory Resolution No. 9 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11 April 2023

Concerning the constitutionality of certain provisions of Part 2 of Article 146 of the CPC relating to house arrest.

102. SUMMARY TABLE OF LEGAL CLASSIFICATION

Source for the current structure of Article 105: Zakon i Pravo legal information portal.

103. KEY LAW-ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

The most complex issues concerning the criminal offence under consideration are as follows.

1. Establishing the causal link

It must be established that the accused person’s conduct constituted a legally significant factor leading to the suicide.

2. Establishing prior conspiracy

Evidence of a prior agreement is required.

3. Individualization of each participant’s role

The specific actions attributable to each person must be identified.

4. Distinguishing a criminal group from prior conspiracy

These are different forms of complicity.

5. Electronic evidence

The origin and authenticity of electronic evidence must be established.

6. The victim’s psychological state

The victim’s psychological state must be examined without substituting an expert’s assessment for the legal assessment required of the court.

7. Reconciliation

The possibility of applying Article 68 of the CC depends on the specific elements of the offence and the circumstances of the case. Its application is expressly excluded where the offence has been committed by a criminal group.

8. Civil claims

It is necessary to distinguish correctly between the procedural time limit for filing a claim in criminal proceedings and the limitation period applicable to an independent civil claim.

104. GENERAL CONCLUSION

Subparagraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 105 of the CC of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes a qualified offence against human life. Establishing the fact of suicide or attempted suicide and the involvement of several persons is not, by itself, sufficient.

For the conduct to be lawfully classified, the following elements must be established collectively:

1. The existence of conduct provided for by Article 105 of the CC.
2. The existence of the relevant victim.
3. The occurrence of suicide or an actual attempt at suicide, as applicable to the relevant form of conduct.
4. The specific method of exerting pressure or the form of inducing or assisting suicide.
5. The causal link, where it constitutes a necessary element of the relevant form of the offence.
6. The intentional nature of the conduct.
7. The involvement of at least two participants.
8. The joint nature of their actions.
9. Prior conspiracy or the characteristics of a criminal group.
10. The specific role of each participant.
11. The absence of an excess of complicity by any participant.
12. The admissibility of the evidence.
13. The sufficiency of the body of evidence as a whole.

It must be emphasized that “a group of persons acting in prior conspiracy” and “a criminal group” are distinct legal concepts and must not be treated as identical. Article 31 of the CC expressly distinguishes between them.

From a procedural perspective, a case under subparagraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 105 will generally fall within the jurisdiction of a district or equivalent court. This is because the specialized inter-district criminal court hears particularly serious offences and specifically enumerated offences, whereas Article 105 is not included in that list.

Since the maximum penalty under subparagraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 105 is five years’ imprisonment, the offence is classified as a medium-gravity criminal offence. The general limitation period for criminal prosecution is five years.

A civil claim may be filed directly in criminal proceedings before the conclusion of the judicial investigation. The civil claimant is exempt from paying state duty.

Where a separate civil action is brought, the limitation rules must be analyzed independently, including the general three-year limitation period and the grounds for its restoration.

Finally, when classifying a group offence, Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 April 2018, “On the Court Judgment,” is of particular importance. The court is required to individualize the actions of each defendant and may not limit itself to a general statement that the offence was committed by a group.

105. KEY LINKS TO ZAKONPRAVO.KZ

Article 105 of the CC of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Driving a Person to Suicide, Inducing Suicide or Assisting Suicide

https://zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-105-dovedenie-do-samoubiystva-sklonenie-k-soversheniyu-samoubiystva-ili-sodeystvie-soversheniyu-samoubiystva-uk-rk-ugolovnogo-kodeksa-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 28 of the CC — Types of Accomplices

https://zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-28-vidy-souchastnikov-ugolovnogo-pravonarusheniya-uk-rk-ugolovnogo-kodeksa-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 29 of the CC — Liability of Accomplices

https://www.zakonpravo.kz/statya-29-otvetstvennost-souchastnikov-ugolovnogo-pravonarusheniya-uk-rk-ugolovnogo-kodeksa-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 31 of the CC — Criminal Liability for Offences Committed by a Group

https://adilet.kz/ru/laws/uk/st-31/

Article 68 of the CC — Reconciliation

https://zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-68-osvobozhdenie-ot-ugolovnoy-otvetstvennosti-v-svyazi-s-primireniem-uk-rk-ugolovnogo-kodeksa-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 71 of the CC — Limitation Period for Criminal Prosecution

https://adilet.kz/ru/laws/uk/st-71/

Article 71 of the CPC — Victim

https://www.zakonpravo.kz/kz/statya-71-poterpevshiy-upk-rk-ugolovno-protsessualnyy-kodeks-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 112 of the CPC — Evidence Inadmissible for Use as Evidence

https://www.zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-112-fakticheskie-dannye-ne-dopustimye-v-kachestve-dokazatelstv-upk-rk-ugolovno-protsessualnyy-kodeks-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 125 of the CPC — Assessment of Evidence

https://www.zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-125-otsenka-dokazatelstv-upk-rk-ugolovno-protsessualnyy-kodeks-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 136 of the CPC — Grounds for Applying Preventive Measures

https://zakonpravo.kz/statya-136-osnovaniya-dlya-primeneniya-mer-presecheniya-upk-rk-ugolovno-protsessualnyy-kodeks-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 155 of the CPC — Other Measures of Procedural Coercion

https://www.zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-155-osnovaniya-dlya-primeneniya-inyh-mer-protsessualnogo-prinuzhdeniya-upk-rk-ugolovno-protsessualnyy-kodeks-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 167 of the CPC — Filing a Civil Claim

https://zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-167-predyavlenie-grazhdanskogo-iska-upk-rk-ugolovno-protsessualnyy-kodeks-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 170 of the CPC — Decisions on Civil Claims

https://zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-170-resheniya-po-grazhdanskomu-isku-upk-rk-ugolovno-protsessualnyy-kodeks-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 306 of the CPC — Criminal Cases Within the Jurisdiction of District Courts

https://zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-306-ugolovnye-dela-podsudnye-rayonnomu-i-priravnennomu-k-nemu-sudu-upk-rk-ugolovno-protsessualnyy-kodeks-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 308 of the CPC — Specialized Inter-District Criminal Court

https://zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-308-ugolovnye-dela-podsudnye-spetsializirovannomu-mezhrayonnomu-sudu-po-ugolovnym-delam-upk-rk-ugolovno-protsessualnyy-kodeks-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 314 of the CPC — Territorial Jurisdiction of Criminal Cases

https://zakonpravo.kz/kz/statya-314-territorialnaya-podsudnost-ugolovnyh-del-upk-rk-ugolovno-protsessualnyy-kodeks-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 178 of the Civil Code — Limitation Periods

https://www.zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-178-sroki-iskovoy-davnosti-grazhdanskogo-kodeksa-respubliki-kazahstan

Article 185 of the Civil Code — Restoration of the Limitation Period

https://www.zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-185-vosstanovlenie-sroka-iskovoy-davnosti-grazhdanskogo-kodeksa-respubliki-kazahstan

Law on Legal Acts, Article 10 — Hierarchy of Regulatory Legal Acts

https://www.zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-10-ierarhiya-normativnyh-pravovyh-aktov-zakona-o-pravovyh-aktah

Law on Legal Acts, Article 18 — Drafting of Subordinate Regulatory Legal Acts

https://zakonpravo.kz/ru/statya-18-poryadok-razrabotki-i-soglasovaniya-proektov-podzakonnyh-normativnyh-pravovyh-aktov-zakona-o-pravovyh-aktah

Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11 May 2007 — Offences Against Human Life and Health

https://www.zakonpravo.kz/zh/o-kvalifikatsii-nekotoryh-ugolovnyh-pravonarusheniy-protiv-zhizni-i-zdorovya-cheloveka

Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 April 2018 — On the Court Judgment

https://zakonpravo.kz/o-sudebnom-prigovore-normativnoe-postanovlenie-verhovnogo-suda-respubliki-kazahstan-ot-20-aprelya-2018-goda-4

Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 21 June 2001 — Application of Article 68 of the CC

https://zakonpravo.kz/ru/o-sudebnoy-praktike-po-primeneniyu-stati-68-ugolovnogo-kodeksa-respubliki-kazahstan-normativnoe-postanovlenie-verhovnogo-suda-respubliki-kazahstan-ot-21-iyunya-2001-goda-n-4

Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 June 2005 — Civil Claims in Criminal Proceedings

https://zakonpravo.kz/ru/o-rassmotrenii-grazhdanskogo-iska-v-ugolovnom-protsesse-normativnoe-postanovlenie-verhovnogo-suda-respubliki-kazahstan-ot-20-iyunya-2005-goda-n-1

Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 10 July 2008 — Application of International Treaties

https://zakonpravo.kz/ru/primenenie-norm-mezhdunarodnyh-dogovorov-respubliki-kazahstan-normativnoe-postanovlenie-verhovnogo-suda-respubliki-kazahstan-ot-10-iyulya-2008-goda-n-1

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