Intentional Infliction of Minor Bodily Harm Against a Person Performing Official, Professional or Public Duties

On Subparagraph 2) of Part 2 of Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Intentional infliction of minor bodily harm against a person or their close associates in connection with the performance of that person's official duties or the discharge of their professional or public duty

Legislation as of October 3, 2026

1. Provision of Criminal Law

Subparagraph 2) of Part 2 of Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes liability for the intentional infliction of minor bodily harm committed:

“against a person or their close associates in connection with that person's performance of official duties or discharge of professional or public duty.”

The sanctions under Part 2 of Article 108-1 provide for:

• a fine of up to 1,000 monthly calculation indices (MCI);
• corrective labour in the same amount;
• community service for up to 600 hours;
• restriction of liberty for up to 2 years;
• imprisonment for up to 2 years. (Zakon i Pravo)

Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Zakonpravo.kz

At the same time, Article 108-1 was introduced by Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 72-VIII dated April 15, 2024, the provisions of which have been in force since June 16, 2024. This is also specifically explained by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (Adilet)

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 72-VIII dated April 15, 2024

2. Place of the Provision within the System of Criminal Legislation

The provision under consideration is located in the chapter of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan concerning criminal offences against human life and health.

From a systematic perspective, it is necessary to distinguish between:

Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

The specific feature of the offence under consideration is that the legislator protects not only a person's physical health.

The additional protected legal interest is the social relations that ensure a person's ability to:

• perform official duties;
• engage in professional activities;
• discharge public duties.

For this reason, bodily injuries with identical consequences — for example, a fractured finger — may constitute an offence under Part 1 of Article 108-1 where no qualifying circumstances are present, but may fall under Subparagraph 2) of Part 2 of Article 108-1 where the relevant connection exists.

3. Objective Elements of the Offence

The following circumstances must be established cumulatively for the offence to be constituted:

1. An act or omission resulting in bodily harm was committed;
2. The harm must be specifically classified as minor;
3. The perpetrator acted intentionally;
4. The victim is a person performing official, professional or public activities/duties, or a close associate of such a person;
5. There is the required connection between the specified activities/duties and the assault;
6. The perpetrator was aware of the relevant circumstance.

The last element is of particular importance.

The mere fact that the victim is, for example:

• a doctor;
• a lawyer;
• a journalist;
• a teacher;
• a police officer;
• a military servicemember;
• a civil servant;
• a member of parliament;
• a public activist;
• a witness,

does not automatically mean that any infliction of minor bodily harm upon that person qualifies under Subparagraph 2) of Part 2 of Article 108-1.

It is necessary to prove the actual connection between the assault and the performance of the relevant activities or duties.

4. What Constitutes “Official Duties”

The regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan entitled “On the Qualification of Certain Criminal Offences Against Human Life and Health” is of considerable importance in interpreting this element.

With regard to a similar qualifying element, the Supreme Court explains that official activities mean activities falling within the scope of a person's official duties. (Adilet)

Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Qualification of Criminal Offences Against Human Life and Health

For example:

Situation 1

A police officer is preparing an administrative offence report.

A citizen who is dissatisfied with the preparation of the report strikes the officer.

If it is established that the blow was inflicted specifically because the officer was performing official duties, qualification under the provision under consideration may be possible.

Situation 2

A police officer is on leave and has a dispute with a neighbour over a parking space.

If the infliction of bodily harm is in no way connected with the officer's official activities, the fact that the victim is a police officer does not, in itself, establish the qualifying element.

5. Professional Duty

Professional duty is somewhat broader than the ordinary understanding of official duties.

The Supreme Court indicates that the discharge of professional duty is associated with performing actions arising from a particular profession. (Adilet)

For example:

• a doctor provides medical assistance;
• a lawyer provides legal defence;
• a journalist performs professional journalistic activities;
• a driver performs professional transportation services;
• a teacher performs professional duties;
• an emergency medical doctor provides assistance to a patient.

However, an important distinction must be taken into account:

profession ≠ automatic performance of professional duty in every specific conflict.

For example, if a doctor has an argument with a neighbour over a domestic matter and suffers minor bodily harm, there are no grounds to automatically apply the provision under consideration.

6. Public Duty

This particular element often raises the most complex evidentiary issues.

The Supreme Court indicates that the discharge of public duty may include:

• the performance of specifically assigned public responsibilities;
• actions undertaken in the interests of society;
• actions undertaken in the interests of individual persons.

The Supreme Court provides the following examples:

• preventing an offence;
• reporting a planned or committed criminal offence;
• giving witness testimony. (Adilet)

Consequently, the provision under consideration may potentially cover assaults against:

• a witness;
• a person who has reported a crime;
• a citizen preventing unlawful conduct;
• a person providing assistance to another individual;
• a participant in public activities.

7. The Main Qualifying Element — Causal Connection

The wording:

“in connection with the performance…”

has independent criminal-law significance.

The investigation and the court must answer the following question:

Why did the accused strike the victim?

If the answer is:

“Because the victim was performing official duties”

or

“Because the victim reported a crime”

or

“Because the victim, acting as a doctor, refused to comply with an unlawful demand”

— the qualifying element may be established.

If the answer is:

“Because of personal hostility arising from a domestic dispute”

— there may be no grounds for applying the subparagraph under consideration.

8. The Time of the Assault Is Irrelevant

This is a matter of principle.

The Supreme Court expressly explains that, for the purposes of the relevant qualifying element, it does not matter whether the offence was committed:

• directly while performing official duties;
• directly while discharging professional duty;
• directly while discharging public duty;
• some time after such activities or duties had been performed. (Adilet)

For example:

Day 1: A witness gives testimony against the accused.

Day 20: The accused encounters the witness and assaults them specifically in retaliation for the testimony.

The passage of time, in itself, does not eliminate the qualifying element.

9. Legality of the Victim's Activities

A fundamental limitation arises here.

The Supreme Court explains that the qualifying element does not apply where the victim's relevant official activities were unlawful. (Adilet)

This means that it is necessary to establish:

1. What specific activities the victim was performing;
2. Whether those activities fell within the victim's authority;
3. Whether those activities were lawful;
4. Whether the assault was connected specifically with those activities.

10. Assault Against the Victim's Close Associates

A specific feature of the statutory wording is the phrase:

“or their close associates”.

Thus, the direct victim of physical violence may be someone other than the person who was performing official/professional/public duties.

For example:

A — an investigator.

B — A's spouse.

The accused cannot exert direct influence on the investigator and therefore assaults B in order to take revenge on the investigator for conducting the investigation.

If the necessary circumstances are proven, B is the victim of the physical assault, but the motive for the attack is connected with A's activities.

11. Who Qualifies as a “Close Associate”

The Supreme Court provides a sufficiently broad interpretation.

“Close associates” include not only close relatives but also other persons whom the individual performing official activities or discharging professional or public duties holds dear.

At the same time, it is necessary to establish the perpetrator's prior knowledge of the close relationship. (Adilet)

This means that two elements must be proven:

Objective element

There is a close relationship between the individuals;

Subjective element

The accused knew about that relationship.

For example, an assault against an acquaintance of a police officer cannot automatically be considered an aggravated offence merely because it subsequently emerges that the victim was close to that officer.

It is necessary to prove that the perpetrator:

• knew about their relationship;
• connected the assault with the activities of the principal person.

12. Subjective Elements of the Offence

The offence is committed intentionally.

It is necessary to prove:

• awareness of the nature of the actions;
• foresight of the possibility of causing harm;
• the desire to cause harm or conscious acceptance of its infliction.

In addition, with regard to the qualifying element under consideration, the relevant motivational connection must be established.

In practical terms, this means proving not merely that:

“A intentionally struck B”,

but rather that:

“A intentionally struck B specifically because B was performing certain official, professional or public functions, or because B was a close associate of such a person.”

13. Minor Bodily Harm

The Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan defines minor bodily harm as harm resulting in:

• a short-term health disorder lasting no more than 21 days, or
• an insignificant permanent loss of general working capacity amounting to less than one-tenth. (Adilet)

This circumstance is established primarily through a forensic medical examination.

The Supreme Court expressly states that the severity of bodily harm is determined on the basis of an expert opinion in accordance with the rules governing forensic examinations. (Adilet)

14. Forensic Medical Examination

The key subordinate regulatory legal act is the Rules for the Organisation and Conduct of Forensic Examinations and Studies.

The principal regulatory act is Order No. 484 of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 27, 2017.

At the same time, it is important to take into account that the Rules have been amended repeatedly, including in 2026. In particular, Order No. 935 of the Minister of Justice dated September 21, 2026 introduced further amendments. (Adilet)

Rules for the Organisation and Conduct of Forensic Examinations and Studies

In such a case, the expert must be able to answer questions concerning:

• the nature of the injuries;
• the mechanism by which they were sustained;
• the time at which they occurred;
• the degree of severity;
• the causal relationship between the injury and the alleged incident.

15. Inadmissibility of the Court Substituting Its Own Assessment for That of an Expert

The court should not independently determine the medical degree of severity of an injury solely on the basis of:

• a photograph of a bruise;
• a certificate from a trauma centre;
• subjective complaints;
• the victim's testimony.

These materials have evidentiary value; however, the issue of the relevant qualifying medical criterion must be resolved with due regard to specialised knowledge.

Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan requires each item of evidence to be assessed according to the following criteria:

• relevance;
• admissibility;
• reliability;

while the body of evidence must be assessed according to the criterion of sufficiency. (Zakon i Pravo)

Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Assessment of Evidence

16. Distinction from Battery — Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code

It is extremely important to establish whether minor bodily harm was actually caused.

If physical force caused:

• physical pain,

but did not result in minor bodily harm, Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code applies.

The Supreme Court expressly explains that battery resulting in a short-term health disorder or an insignificant permanent loss of general working capacity is classified as the infliction of minor bodily harm under Article 108-1. (Adilet)

Therefore, forensic medical classification is central to the matter.

17. Distinction from Torture — Article 110 of the Criminal Code

If violence is systematic and repeated in nature and is accompanied by particular cruelty, humiliation, or the infliction of physical and mental suffering for the purpose of causing torment, the question of applying Article 110 of the Criminal Code arises.

The Supreme Court has specifically clarified that battery and the infliction of minor bodily harm may be covered by the offence of torture, in which case additional qualification under Articles 108-1 or 109-1 is not required. (Adilet)

18. Distinction from Article 107 of the Criminal Code

If the examination establishes:

• a health disorder lasting more than 21 days;
• or a significant permanent loss of working capacity,

the issue of infliction of bodily harm of medium gravity and application of Article 107 of the Criminal Code arises.

At the same time, Part 2 of Article 107 also provides for an identical qualifying element: the commission of an act against a person or their close associates in connection with that person's official activities or the discharge of professional/public duty. (Adilet)

In other words, the motive may be the same, while the medical severity of the bodily harm determines the distinction between the offences.

19. Category of the Criminal Offence

The sanction under Subparagraph 2) of Part 2 of Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years.

Under the system of criminal offence categories established by the Criminal Code, this constitutes a criminal offence of minor gravity.

This has important procedural consequences:

• a two-year limitation period for criminal prosecution applies;
• exemption from criminal liability in connection with reconciliation may be possible;
• the relevant simplified forms of criminal proceedings may be available where the conditions prescribed by law are met;
• the category of the offence must be taken into account when determining the punishment.

Article 71 of the Criminal Code provides for a two-year limitation period for criminal offences of minor gravity; the period is calculated from the date of commission of the offence until the date on which the court judgment enters into legal force. (Adilet)

20. Limitation Period for Criminal Prosecution

For the offence under consideration, the key issue is not the limitation period for filing a civil claim, but the limitation period for criminal prosecution.

Under Part 1 of Article 71 of the Criminal Code:

two years — for criminal offences of minor gravity.

The period is calculated as follows:

date of commission of the offence → date on which the court judgment enters into legal force. (Adilet)

Evasion of the investigation or the court is of particular importance: in cases provided for by law, the running of the limitation period is suspended.

 21. Restoration of the Criminal Prosecution Limitation Period

A fundamental distinction must be made here.

The limitation period for criminal prosecution is not an ordinary procedural time limit that a court can simply “restore” upon the victim’s application.

If the limitation period has expired, the matter is resolved in accordance with Article 71 of the Criminal Code and the relevant grounds for termination of criminal prosecution.

Therefore, in practice, a lawyer should examine not so much the “validity of the reasons for missing the deadline” as the following:

1. The date of commission of the criminal offence;
2. The date of registration of the criminal proceedings;
3. The date on which the person was brought to criminal liability;
4. Whether there was any evasion;
5. The circumstances of suspension of the proceedings;
6. The date of judicial consideration;
7. The date on which the final decision entered into legal force.

22. Civil Claim and the Limitation Period

A completely different legal regime applies here.

Under Article 178 of the Civil Code, the general limitation period is three years. (Law and Practice)

However, Article 187 of the Civil Code establishes a special exception:

the limitation period does not apply to claims for compensation for harm caused to a person's life or health.

However, claims filed at a later date shall be satisfied for no more than the three years preceding the filing of the claim. (Law and Practice)

This is extremely important for practice concerning Article 108-1.

In other words:

criminal liability

may be extinguished by the two-year limitation period;

a claim for compensation for harm to health

is not subject to the ordinary three-year limitation period in the same sense.

23. Restoration of the Limitation Period for a Civil Claim

In claims for harm to health, the issue of restoring the limitation period generally does not arise at all, since Article 187 of the Civil Code excludes the application of the limitation period.

Therefore, the correct legal formulation is:

“the limitation period must be restored”

is not always the correct approach.

The subject matter of the claim must first be established.

If the claim concerns:

• compensation for harm to health;
• compensation for non-pecuniary damage;
• medical treatment expenses,

the special provisions governing compensation for harm to health should be analysed.

If, however, the matter concerns another independent property claim, the general three-year period and the institution of restoration/application of the limitation period may apply.

24. Territorial Jurisdiction over a Criminal Case

Territorial jurisdiction is governed by Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The general rule is:

a criminal case shall be considered by the court at the place where the criminal offence was committed. (Law and Practice)

If the place of commission cannot be established or other circumstances prescribed by law exist, special rules shall apply.

Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Territorial Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases

25. Court of First Instance

As a general rule, the criminal case under consideration does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body, and following legislative amendments, the relevant provisions concerning its competence have acquired a cassation-related nature. (Law and Practice)

In practice, the case commences before a court of first instance within the relevant territorial jurisdiction.

26. Allocation of Jurisdiction among Authorities

From a terminological perspective, the following terms are more appropriate in criminal proceedings:

• jurisdiction of courts;
• investigative jurisdiction;
• competence of criminal prosecution authorities.

At the pre-trial investigation stage, the application is considered by the criminal prosecution authority.

Article 187 of the Criminal Procedure Code governs investigative jurisdiction. For the general category of cases not assigned to the special competence of the National Security Committee, the Anti-Corruption Service or the Economic Investigation Service, the relevant rules governing the competence of internal affairs authorities apply. (Law and Practice)

With regard to the offence under consideration, no special assignment to the jurisdiction of the National Security Committee or the Anti-Corruption Service is established as such.

27. The Most Important Procedural Distinction: Part 2 of Article 108-1 Is a Case of Private-Public Prosecution

Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly classifies Part 1 of Article 108-1 as a case of private-public prosecution.

At the same time, paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 108-1 also constitutes a criminal offence. However, since Part 3 of Article 32 lists specific parts of articles, and only Part 1 of Article 108-1 is included, a fundamental question arises regarding the application of Part 6 of Article 32.

As a general rule, cases not included in the lists under Parts 2 and 3 of Article 32 are cases of public prosecution. (Law and Practice)

Consequently, with regard to the offence provided for in paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 108-1, the applicable procedural regime must be determined on the basis of the version of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code in force on the date of the proceedings, and the procedural regime applicable to Part 1 of Article 108-1 must not automatically be extended to Part 2.

This is particularly important when preparing an application: a case under Part 2 must not be classified as a traditional private prosecution case without first verifying the applicable provisions.

28. Why Article 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code Should Not Be Applied Automatically

Article 408 governs:

the initiation of private prosecution proceedings.

The complaint is submitted directly to the court and must contain:

• a description of the incident;
• the place and time;
• evidence;
• information about the person;
• the relevant article of the Criminal Code;
• a list of witnesses. (Law and Practice)

Article 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Initiation of Private Prosecution

However, this mechanism applies specifically to cases of private prosecution.

For the qualification under consideration, the procedural regime must first be established in accordance with Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

29. Pre-Trial Procedure

There is no civil-law “pre-claim procedure” as a prerequisite for criminal liability.

In other words, the victim is not required to send the accused, in advance:

• a claim;
• a demand;
• a warning;
• an offer to compensate for the harm.

Criminal proceedings are conducted in accordance with the rules of the Criminal Procedure Code.

At the same time, a civil claim may be filed directly within the criminal proceedings.

30. Categories of Participants

The possible participants include:

on the prosecution side

• the victim;
• the victim's representative;
• the prosecutor;
• the criminal prosecution authority;
• the investigator/inquiry officer;
• the civil claimant.

on the defence side

• the suspect;
• the accused;
• the defendant;
• defence counsel;
• the civil defendant — where the relevant grounds exist.

other participants

• witnesses;
• an expert;
• a specialist;
• an interpreter;
• attesting witnesses — where their participation is provided for by law;
• representatives of organisations.

The rights of the victim are set out in detail in Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The victim has the right to:

• submit evidence;
• file motions;
• have a representative;
• file a civil claim;
• seek compensation for non-pecuniary damage;
• participate in judicial proceedings;
• appeal judicial decisions. (Law and Practice)

Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Victim

31. Civil Claim in Criminal Proceedings

Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the following claims to be considered within criminal proceedings:

• claims for compensation for pecuniary damage;
• claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage;
• medical treatment expenses;
• representative's fees and expenses;
• other expenses directly related to the criminal offence. (Law and Practice Mail)

Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Civil Claims Considered in Criminal Proceedings

32. Pecuniary Damage

This may include:

• medical treatment;
• purchase of medicines;
• diagnostic examinations;
• transportation;
• medical rehabilitation;
• lost earnings — where grounds exist;
• other proven expenses.

The general principle of civil liability is established by Article 917 of the Civil Code:

harm caused by unlawful actions to property or non-property rights and benefits shall be compensated in full by the person who caused it. (Law and Practice)

Article 917 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

33. Non-Pecuniary Damage

In cases involving minor harm to health, compensation may be claimed for:

• physical pain;
• emotional suffering;
• fear;
• humiliation;
• disruption of the usual way of life;
• psychological consequences.

The amount of compensation should not be determined automatically based on the degree of severity of the harm.

The court assesses the totality of the circumstances.

34. State Duty

In this regard, it is necessary to take into account the new Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 18 July 2025 No. 214-VIII, which entered into force on 1 January 2026. (Law and Practice)

Article 668 of the Tax Code provides for exemption from payment of state duty, in particular, for:

• claimants in claims for compensation for harm caused by injury or other damage to health;
• claimants in claims for compensation for material damage caused by a criminal offence. (Law and Practice)

Article 668 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Exemption from Payment of State Duty in Courts

Therefore, in a case involving harm to health, the victim must separately verify whether an exemption from payment of state duty applies to the specific legal structure of the civil claim.

35. Reconciliation

Article 68 of the Criminal Code is of enormous importance for the category of cases under consideration.

It provides for exemption from criminal liability in the event of:

1. Reconciliation with the victim;
2. Including reconciliation through mediation;
3. Making amends for the harm caused.

Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Exemption from Criminal Liability in Connection with Reconciliation

However, from 2026 onwards, it is particularly important to take into account the special restrictions established by Article 68.

In particular, it expressly provides for a restriction concerning persons who were previously exempted from criminal liability in connection with reconciliation and who subsequently, within the relevant period, commit another criminal offence provided for under Articles 108-1 or 109-1 of the Criminal Code. (Law and Practice)

36. Mediation

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mediation” expressly provides for the possibility of mediation in criminal proceedings in relation to:

• criminal misdemeanours;
• minor offences;
• offences of medium severity;
• in certain cases — serious offences.

(Law and Practice)

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mediation”

Thus, the institution of mediation is of practical importance for the offence provided for in paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 108-1.

37. What “Making Amends for the Harm” Should Mean

A formal statement such as:

“I have no claims”

is insufficient.

Depending on the circumstances, the following may be relevant:

• reimbursement of expenses;
• payment for medical treatment;
• compensation for non-pecuniary damage;
• transfer of monetary funds;
• restoration of the violated right;
• other forms of compensation.

It is particularly advisable to document:

• the amount;
• the method of transfer;
• the purpose of payment;
• the absence of claims;
• the voluntary nature of the agreement.

38. Reconciliation and Admission of Guilt Are Different Things

Reconciliation does not necessarily mean admitting all the circumstances of the accusation.

The parties may reach an agreement on compensation for the harm and termination of the criminal case on the grounds provided for by law.

However, the legal formalisation of the document must correspond to the actual procedural stage and the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code.

39. Evidence

In cases of the category under consideration, evidence is conventionally divided into five groups.

I. Evidence of the Incident

• video recordings;
• photographs;
• surveillance camera footage;
• audio recordings;
• inspection report;
• information regarding the place and time.

II. Evidence of Harm

• forensic medical examination;
• medical documents;
• medical history;
• certificates;
• examination results.

III. Evidence of Intent

• threats;
• correspondence;
• messages;
• audio recordings;
• previous conflicts;
• statements made immediately before the attack.

IV. Evidence of the Professional/Official/Public Nature of the Activity

• appointment order;
• job description;
• identification card;
• official assignment;
• documents concerning the profession;
• documents concerning the specific event;
• minutes;
• witness testimony.

V. Evidence of the Connection Between the Motive and the Activity

This is the most difficult category.

40. Proving the Motive

A very common mistake is to consider the following statement sufficient:

“He hit me because I am a police officer.”

The victim's testimony constitutes evidence, but it must be assessed in conjunction with the totality of the evidence.

The investigation must seek objective corroboration:

• that the accused knew the victim's status;
• that the conflict arose because of that activity;
• that the accused made relevant threats;
• that there is a temporal/logical connection between the incident and the activity;
• that relevant correspondence exists;
• that witnesses heard the relevant statements.

41. Example of Correct Legal Qualification

Correct qualification

An inspector draws up a report on an administrative offence.

The person says:

“I will make you pay for that report.”

Several hours later, the person finds the inspector and strikes him, causing minor harm to his health.

In this case, potentially all the necessary elements are present:

• minor harm to health;
• intentional conduct;
• knowledge of the victim's status;
• the conflict arose because of official duties;
• causal connection.

42. Example of Incorrect Legal Qualification

A police officer and a citizen have been involved in a long-standing conflict arising from personal relationships.

Several months later, the citizen assaults the police officer for domestic reasons.

If it is established that the motive was personal relationships rather than official duties, the application of paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 108-1 may be unjustified.

43. Example Involving a Lawyer

A lawyer represents an accused person in a criminal case.

After a court hearing, the accused considers the lawyer's position unsatisfactory and strikes the lawyer.

In this case, it is necessary to establish:

• whether the lawyer was assaulted specifically because of the performance of professional functions;
• or whether the conflict was personal;
• what statements the accused made;
• what exactly was the immediate cause of the attack.

The mere fact that the person holds the status of a lawyer is insufficient.

44. Example Involving a Journalist

A journalist publishes an article.

Several days later, a person dissatisfied with the publication causes minor harm to the journalist's health.

It is necessary to establish:

• whether the publication constituted professional activity;
• whether the accused knew that the victim was the author;
• whether the publication was the reason for the attack;
• whether there was a motive of revenge/attempt to influence professional activity.

45. Example Involving a Close Person

An investigator is investigating a criminal case.

The accused threatens:

“If you do not terminate the case, I will deal with your brother.”

The accused then causes minor harm to the brother's health.

If the following circumstances are proven:

• knowledge of the family relationship/close relationship;
• connection between the attack and the investigation;
• intent to exert influence through a close person,

the qualifying element may apply to the attack on the close person.

46. Procedural Compulsion

The Criminal Procedure Code provides for a system of procedural coercive measures.

Depending on the specific circumstances, the following may be applied:

• compulsory appearance;
• monetary penalty;
• detention;
• preventive measures;
• other measures provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code.

47. Compulsory Appearance

Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a suspect, accused, defendant, witness or victim to be brought in by compulsory appearance if they fail to appear without valid reasons.

In this regard:

• compulsory appearance may not be carried out at night;
• restrictions apply to certain categories of persons;
• the order must be duly formalised. (Law and Practice)

Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Compulsory Appearance

48. Monetary Penalty

Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code governs the procedure for imposing a monetary penalty.

The amount may be up to 50 MCI (Monthly Calculation Index).

The matter is considered by the court; at the pre-trial investigation stage, the protocol is submitted to the investigating judge. (Law and Practice)

Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Procedure for Imposing a Monetary Penalty

49. Detention

In theory, the possibility of detention depends on the existence of procedural grounds, since Part 2 of Article 108-1 provides for imprisonment as a possible penalty.

Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code defines detention as a measure of procedural coercion and establishes specific grounds for its application. (Law and Practice)

Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Grounds for Detention

However, the mere fact that the sanction provides for imprisonment does not automatically mean that the state has the right to detain any accused person.

There must be factual grounds provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code.

50. Safety Measures for the Victim

This may be particularly important in cases of the category under consideration.

The victim has the right to file a motion requesting:

• safety measures;
• protection of family members;
• non-disclosure of information concerning private life;
• a prohibition on the suspect approaching the victim.

This is expressly reflected in Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Law and Practice)

51. Appellate Proceedings

The victim has the right to appeal the judgment.

The accused/defense counsel also has an equivalent right within the limits established by the Criminal Procedure Code.

For appellate review of cases under Article 108-1, the following issues are generally of greatest significance:

1. correctness of the legal classification;
2. proof of minor harm to health;
3. proof of intent;
4. proof of the specific connection with professional/official/public activities;
5. reliability of testimony;
6. admissibility of evidence;
7. amount of compensation;
8. correctness of the sentencing;
9. existence of grounds for reconciliation.

52. Supreme Court Practice

An important reservation must be made here.

The publicly available judicial database currently contains significantly fewer systematically published judicial acts specifically concerning the new elements under subparagraph 2) of paragraph 2 of Article 108-1 than those concerning the former articles on causing harm to health.

The reason is clear: Article 108-1 entered into force only on June 16, 2024. (Adilet)

Therefore, the most reliable sources of law enforcement practice at present are:

1. the text of Article 108-1;
2. the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court on crimes against life and health;
3. the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code;
4. practice concerning similar qualifying elements under Articles 99, 106 and 107;
5. published judgments under Article 108-1.

53. Main Legal Guidance of the Supreme Court

The Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court “On the Qualification of Certain Criminal Offenses Against Human Life and Health” is of particular importance.

In this resolution, the Supreme Court:

• explains the concept of harm to health;
• distinguishes between minor, moderate and serious harm;
• determines the significance of forensic medical examination;
• clarifies the concepts of official activities;
• professional duty;
• public duty;
• close persons;
• causation;
• the time of commission of the encroachment. (Adilet)

Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Zakonpravo.kz

54. Practice of Appellate Courts

For an appeal, it is particularly important to distinguish between two types of errors.

Error No. 1 — incorrect medical classification

For example:

the expert established minor harm, whereas the court, without sufficient grounds, classified the harm as moderate.

Error No. 2 — incorrect motivational classification

The court established that the victim was a police officer but did not establish that the attack was connected with the performance of the victim's official duties.

The second defect constitutes an independent ground for reviewing the legal classification.

55. Practice of Courts of First Instance

For a court of first instance, it is fundamentally important to establish a two-level evidentiary framework.

First level

To prove that:

minor harm to health was caused.

Second level

To prove that:

the harm was caused specifically in connection with professional/official/public activities or the performance of a duty.

If only the first level is proven, this does not automatically mean that subparagraph 2) of paragraph 2 of Article 108-1 has been established.

56. What a Reasoned Judgment of Conviction Should Look Like

From the perspective of legal drafting, it is insufficient to state:

“The defendant caused minor harm to the health of the victim, who is a police officer.”

It is necessary to establish:

1. the victim's position;
2. the victim's specific actions;
3. the lawfulness of those actions;
4. the defendant's awareness of them;
5. the substance of the conflict;
6. the defendant's statements;
7. the motive;
8. the connection between the activities and the violence;
9. the medical nature of the harm;
10. intent.

57. Inadmissibility of Objective Imposition of a Qualifying Element

The prosecution cannot construct its case as follows:

“The victim is a doctor; therefore, subparagraph 2) automatically applies.”

This effectively constitutes objective imputation.

It is necessary to prove the accused person's subjective attitude toward the qualifying circumstance.

58. International Standards

The following universal standards are primarily applicable to the category under consideration:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 7 prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Article 14 establishes guarantees of a fair trial.

The following are of particular importance for criminal proceedings under Article 108-1:

• presumption of innocence;
• right to defense;
• right to a fair trial;
• equality of the parties;
• right to examine witnesses.

59. Convention Against Torture

In cases involving ordinary infliction of minor harm to health, Article 108-1 itself does not mean that torture has been committed.

The definition of torture under the Convention is associated with the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering, the presence of specific purposes and, in the classical formulation, the involvement or acquiescence of a public official.

Therefore, the Convention Against Torture cannot automatically be applied to every private conflict involving the infliction of minor harm to health.

However, standards prohibiting cruel treatment are relevant to:

• the treatment of a suspect;
• the treatment of a victim;
• the investigation of allegations of violence;
• the assessment of unlawful methods of obtaining evidence.

60. Constitutional Guarantees

The constitutional basis for the protection of human rights is primarily associated with:

• the right to judicial protection;
• the right to qualified legal assistance;
• the presumption of innocence;
• judicial power;
• the inadmissibility of arbitrary restrictions on rights.

Judicial power is exercised to protect the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations. (Zakon i Pravo)

61. Regulatory Framework

For the practical application of subparagraph 2) of paragraph 2 of Article 108-1, the following body of legislation should be used.

Principal Laws

1. Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Fundamental guarantees of human rights and judicial protection.

Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan

2. Criminal Code

Key provisions:

• Article 3 — definitions;
• Article 11 — categories of criminal offenses;
• Article 15 — age of criminal liability;
• Article 68 — reconciliation;
• Article 71 — limitation periods;
• Article 106;
• Article 107;
• Article 108-1;
• Article 109-1;
• Article 110.

Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

3. Criminal Procedure Code

In particular:

• Article 32;
• Article 65;
• Article 71;
• Article 72;
• Article 113;
• Article 125;
• Article 128;
• Article 157;
• Article 160;
• Article 166;
• Article 187;
• Article 314;
• provisions governing court proceedings;
• provisions governing appellate and cassation review.

Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

62. Subordinate Regulatory Legal Acts

The key instrument for determining the degree of harm is Order No. 484 of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

It regulates:

• the organization of examinations;
• the procedure for conducting expert examinations;
• forensic medical examinations;
• the preparation of expert opinions;
• the examination of bodily injuries.

At the same time, as of September 21, 2026, amendments have been made to it by Order No. 935. (Adilet)

63. Law “On Forensic Expert Activities”

This Law defines:

• the legal framework for expert examinations;
• the status of an expert;
• the powers of an expert;
• the organization of forensic expert activities;
• requirements for expert examinations.

The Law was also amended in 2026. (Zakon i Pravo)

64. Law “On Mediation”

It is relevant to the termination of criminal proceedings in connection with reconciliation.

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mediation”

65. Civil Code

For a civil claim:

• Article 917 — general grounds of liability for causing harm;
• Article 951 et seq. — moral harm;
• provisions on compensation for harm to health;
• Article 178 — general limitation period for claims;
• Article 187 — claims to which the limitation period does not apply.

Article 917 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Article 178 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Article 187 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

66. Tax Code — State Duty

As of January 1, 2026, the Tax Code dated July 18, 2025, No. 214-VIII, applies.

For this category of cases, the following provisions should primarily be taken into account:

• Article 665 — rates of state duty;
• Article 668 — exemption from payment;
• Article 672 — procedure for payment.

Article 665 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Article 672 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

67. Practical Checklist for the Prosecution

To prepare the prosecution's position, the following should be collected:

Regarding the harm

☐ medical records;☐ forensic medical examination report;☐ photographs;☐ examination results;☐ confirmation of treatment.

Regarding the incident

☐ video recordings;☐ witnesses;☐ correspondence;☐ audio recordings;☐ inspection report.

Regarding professional/official status

☐ employment and position-related documents;☐ order;☐ identification card;☐ job description;☐ documents relating to the relevant event or activity.

Regarding the motive

☐ threats;☐ messages;☐ statements;☐ circumstances of the conflict;☐ preceding events.

Regarding close persons

☐ documents confirming kinship or other close relationships;☐ evidence of the accused person's awareness of such relationships.

68. Checklist for the Defense

The defense, in turn, should examine the following:

1. Was minor harm to health actually caused?

If not, Article 108-1 may be inapplicable.

2. Was there intent?

It is necessary to examine the possibility of:

• accidental collision;
• negligence;
• self-defense;
• a mutual fight;
• the injury having been caused by another person.

3. Is there a connection with professional activities?

This is the central issue.

4. Did the accused know the victim's status?

5. Did the accused know about the close relationship?

6. Was the victim's activity lawful?

7. Was the conflict of a domestic nature?

8. Is there another criminal offense?

For example:

• Article 109-1;
• Article 107;
• Article 110;
• an administrative offense.

69. Typical Prosecution Error

In practice, one of the most vulnerable prosecution arguments may be constructed as follows:

“The victim is an employee of the relevant authority; therefore, the infliction of harm was connected with the performance of official duties.”

This is logically incorrect.

It is necessary to prove:

status → specific activity → awareness of the accused → conflict → motive → infliction of harm.

70. Typical Defense Error

The opposite mistake is also possible:

“He was not at work; therefore, subparagraph 2) of paragraph 2 does not apply.”

This is also incorrect.

The Supreme Court expressly indicates that the time interval between the performance of the relevant activity and the encroachment, in itself, does not exclude the qualifying element. (Adilet)

71. Specific Features of Qualification Where Harm Is Caused to a Close Person

It is necessary to establish two connections:

First

The connection between the principal person and their professional/official/public activities or the performance of their duty.

Second

The connection between those activities and the attack on the close person.

For example:

“I cannot influence the investigator, so I will cause harm to his spouse.”

This is fundamentally different from:

“I had a personal dispute with the investigator's spouse and hit her.”

72. Civil Claim Following Termination of Criminal Proceedings

Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a civil claim to be brought in civil proceedings if it:

• was not filed;
• was withdrawn;
• was left without consideration. (ZakonPravo Mail)

However, the specific grounds for termination of the criminal case must be taken into account.

The Supreme Court's practice demonstrates that the fate of a civil claim depends on the grounds for termination and the nature of the circumstances established by the court.

73. Practice Regarding Legal Costs

A published case considered by the Supreme Court concerning a civil dispute over compensation for moral harm and lawyers' fees is noteworthy.

In that case, the Supreme Court drew attention to Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code and indicated that expenses incurred for legal representation in criminal proceedings may be the subject of a civil claim; failure to submit the relevant claim during criminal proceedings does not, in all cases, preclude subsequent recourse to civil proceedings. (Zakon i Pravo)

This is of practical importance for cases involving harm to health.

74. State Duty and Harm to Health

Published judicial materials on Zakonpravo demonstrate different approaches to the recovery of state duty in civil cases.

However, for current practice, it is necessary to rely specifically on the Tax Code in force since 2025, rather than mechanically applying amounts stated in older judicial acts.

This is particularly important as of January 1, 2026, since the previous Tax Code has ceased to be in force. (Zakon i Pravo)

75. Practical Significance of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code

This is one of the most important procedural provisions for the offense under consideration.

Article 32 distinguishes between:

• private prosecution;
• private-public prosecution;
• public prosecution.

The private-public prosecution procedure is expressly established for paragraph 1 of Article 108-1. (Zakon i Pravo)

Therefore, when preparing a procedural document, the lawyer must necessarily verify the current version of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code as of the date of filing the application, particularly following legislative amendments introduced in 2025–2026.

76. Practical Scheme of Criminal Proceedings

The process can be conventionally represented as follows:

1. Incident

↓

2. Application by the victim / report of a criminal offense

↓

3. Verification and registration in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations in accordance with the procedure established by the Criminal Procedure Code

↓

4. Pre-trial investigation

↓

5. Forensic medical examination

↓

6. Establishment of the motive

↓

7. Establishment of the connection with professional/official/public duty

↓

8. Recognition of the person as a suspect/bringing the person into the relevant procedural status

↓

9. Completion of the investigation

↓

10. Referral of the case to court

↓

11. Court of first instance

↓

12. Judgment

↓

13. Appeal

↓

14. Cassation review in cases provided for by law.

77. What Is the Subject of Proof in the Most Complex Aspect?

In essence, the prosecution must prove not merely that:

“A struck B.”

It must prove that:

“A intentionally struck B, understanding the circumstances of B's activities, and did so specifically because of B's performance of official duties or B's performance of professional/public duties.”

 78. Evidence Matrix

79. Particular Attention to Video Recordings

In modern cases involving violence, video recordings may be of exceptional importance.

The following must be ensured:

• source of the recording;
• date;
• time;
• continuity;
• identification of participants;
• absence of editing;
• procedural formalization.

The following recordings are particularly useful:

• CCTV recordings;
• body-worn camera recordings;
• dashcam recordings;
• mobile phone recordings;
• recordings from cameras installed in institutions.

80. Correspondence and Messengers

Messages such as:

“You complained — I will find you”

may be extremely important in establishing the special motive.

However, it is advisable to examine:

• the full dialogue;
• the date;
• the sender;
• the telephone number;
• the account;
• the context;
• technical data;
• the sequence of messages.

A separate phrase taken out of context may be insufficient to reliably establish the motive.

81. Significance of Conduct After the Crime

The following may be relevant:

• attempting to flee;
• destroying video recordings;
• threatening witnesses;
• attempting to reach an agreement;
• voluntary compensation for damage;
• calling an ambulance;
• admission of guilt;
• apologies.

However, each circumstance must be assessed independently and in its entirety.

82. Voluntary Compensation for Damage

Compensation for damage:

• may be relevant to reconciliation;
• may be taken into account when imposing a sentence;
• may characterize post-criminal conduct;
• does not automatically eliminate the elements of a criminal offence.

In other words:

“I paid the victim” ≠ “No crime was committed.”

However, where the conditions prescribed by Article 68 of the Criminal Code are met, this may constitute grounds for exemption from criminal liability.

83. Practical Strategy for the Victim

If the case is only beginning, the victim should document the following:

1. medical consequences;
2. professional status;
3. the specific official/professional/public activity performed;
4. the circumstances of the conflict;
5. threats;
6. the connection between the attack and such activity;
7. material expenses;
8. moral consequences.

It is particularly important not to limit oneself to a medical certificate.

84. Practical Strategy for the Defence

The defence should examine the case in four separate blocks:

A. Medical

Has minor bodily harm actually been established?

B. Factual

Did the accused actually cause the injury?

C. Subjective

Did the accused act intentionally?

D. Qualifying Element

Did the accused act specifically because of the victim's official/professional/public activity?

If the last element is not proven, the issue of qualification under subparagraph 2) of part 2 becomes an independent subject of the defence.

85. Final Legal Formula of the Elements of the Offence

For qualification under subparagraph 2) of part 2 of Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the following must be established:

Intentional conduct

-

causing minor bodily harm

-

the victim is the relevant person or their close relative

-

official / professional / public activity or duty

-

the connection between the attack and such activity or duty

-

the perpetrator's awareness of the relevant connection

\=

Subparagraph 2) of part 2 of Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

86. Key Conclusions Based on Judicial Practice

Conclusion 1

The victim's status alone is insufficient.

Conclusion 2

A connection between the attack and the activity/duty is required.

Conclusion 3

The time of the attack is irrelevant if the corresponding motivational connection remains.

Conclusion 4

The attack may also be directed against a close relative.

Conclusion 5

In relation to a close relative, it must be proven that the perpetrator was aware of the close relationship.

Conclusion 6

Minor bodily harm must be confirmed in accordance with forensic medical rules.

Conclusion 7

If the harm does not meet the criteria for minor bodily harm, Article 108-1 does not apply.

Conclusion 8

If the harm is of moderate severity, Article 107 must be considered.

Conclusion 9

If there are systematic acts of violence committed with the purpose of causing suffering, Article 110 must be examined.

Conclusion 10

For the purposes of the limitation period for criminal prosecution, the two-year period applicable to a criminal offence of minor gravity shall apply. (Adilet)

Conclusion 11

A special rule under Article 187 of the Civil Code applies to claims for compensation for harm to health: the statute of limitations does not apply to such claims; however, where the claim is brought beyond the limitation period, recovery for the preceding three years is restricted. (Zakon i Pravo)

Conclusion 12

For the victim, it is fundamentally important to file a civil claim in the criminal proceedings or to correctly determine the subsequent civil-law remedy. (ZakonPravo Mail)

87. Summary Table

88. Practical List of Links to Zakonpravo.kz

For work on a specific case, I would keep the following provisions open:

Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Intentional Infliction of Minor Bodily Harm

Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Reconciliation

Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Types of Criminal Prosecution

Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Victim

Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Assessment of Evidence

Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Compulsory Appearance

Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Procedure for Imposing a Monetary Penalty

Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Civil Claims Considered in Criminal Proceedings

Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Territorial Jurisdiction of Criminal Cases

Article 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Initiation of Private Prosecution

Article 917 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — General Grounds for Liability for Causing Harm

Article 178 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Limitation Periods

Article 187 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Claims Not Subject to the Statute of Limitations

Article 668 of the Tax Code — Exemption from Payment of State Duty in Courts

Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court on the Qualification of Certain Criminal Offences Against Human Life and Health

89. Final Conclusions for Legal Practice

In cases under subparagraph 2) of part 2 of Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code, the central issue is often not the fact that a blow was struck, but whether the special connection between the attack and the victim's activity has been proven.

Therefore, it is advisable to structure the case around four independent questions:

1. Was minor bodily harm actually caused?

2. Was it caused intentionally?

3. Was the victim performing an official, professional or public function/duty?

4. Was the attack committed specifically in connection with that activity/duty or against a close relative for the same reason?

If at least the fourth element is not confirmed by a body of admissible and reliable evidence, a serious question arises as to whether the conduct should be qualified specifically under subparagraph 2) of part 2 of Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code, even if the fact of causing minor bodily harm itself has been proven.

At the same time, in order to establish the correct procedural position, particular care must be taken not to confuse part 1 and part 2 of Article 108-1, since this directly affects the procedure for criminal prosecution under Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Zakon i Pravo)

The practically strongest evidentiary structure for the prosecution:injury → examination → victim's status → actual performance of the duty → accused's awareness → conflict arising from that activity → intent → causal link.

The strongest defence structure:doubt regarding the degree of harm → doubt regarding intent → alternative motive → absence of a connection with professional/official activity → lack of knowledge of the status/close relationship → failure to prove the qualifying element.

Please Note!

The law firm «Zan zhane Kұқyқ» asks you to take into account that this document is of a general nature and may not correspond to the requirements of your specific situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist in preparing any legal document appropriate to your specific circumstances.

For additional information, you may contact a Lawyer/Attorney at the following telephone numbers: please contact us: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.

Constitution Law Code Regulatory Decree Order Decision Resolution Advocate Almaty Lawyer Defender Legal Services Law Protection Legal Assistance Law Office Civil Cases Criminal Cases Administrative Cases Arbitration Disputes Legal Consultation Lawyer Law Firm Kazakhstan Defence Legal Company Declaration Decree Order Resolution Decision Report Conclusion Application Convention Agreement Memorandum Methodology Rules Note Regulations Programme Charter Article Commentary Resolution Regulations Protocol Draft Address

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