Intentional Infliction of Moderate Bodily Harm

1. General Characteristics of Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes criminal liability for the intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm on a person.

The current version of the Article provides for:

Part 1 — intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm — punishment in the form of a fine of up to 1,000 monthly calculation indices, corrective labor in the same amount, community service for up to 600 hours, or imprisonment for up to two years;

Part 2 — the same act committed in the presence of the qualifying circumstances provided for by law — imprisonment for up to three years.

The official legal nature of this Article requires distinguishing between two independent issues:

1. What specific harm was inflicted on the victim's health;
2. Whether such harm was inflicted intentionally.

The mere existence of bodily injuries does not in itself establish the elements of the criminal offense provided for by Article 107 of the Criminal Code.

For the purposes of qualification, it is necessary to establish the following legally relevant circumstances in their entirety:

• the fact that harm was caused to health;
• the moderate degree of severity of the harm;
• the causal relationship between the person's actions and the resulting harm;
• the intentional form of guilt;
• the person who directly inflicted the harm;
• where there is an aggravated offense, the relevant qualifying circumstance.

Article 107 concerns crimes against the person and primarily protects human health as an independent legal interest.

From a systematic perspective, this Article is positioned alongside Article 106 of the Criminal Code — intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, Article 108-1 — intentional infliction of minor bodily harm, Article 109-1 — battery, Article 110 — torture, and Article 114 — negligent infliction of harm to health.

The official text of Article 107 on the Zakon i Pravo website:

Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Intentional Infliction of Moderate Bodily Harm

2. A Particularly Important Issue: What Constitutes Moderate Bodily Harm

For the purposes of correct legal qualification, it is necessary to refer not only to Article 107 of the Criminal Code but also to the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code governing the concept of harm to health, as well as to forensic medical regulations.

Under the current Criminal Code, moderate bodily harm is characterized by the fact that the harm:

• is not life-threatening;
• causes a long-term health disorder;
• or causes a significant permanent loss of general working capacity of less than one-third.

In law enforcement practice, the degree of harm is established through the application of specialized medical knowledge.

The Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the Qualification of Certain Criminal Offenses Against the Life and Health of a Person” directly links the determination of the severity of harm to an expert opinion obtained in accordance with the Rules for the Organization and Conduct of Forensic Examinations and Studies.

This means that the following principle is fundamentally important:

The court must not independently substitute its own assessment for that of a forensic medical expert when determining the medical degree of severity of the harm.

The court provides a legal assessment of the evidence, whereas the medical classification of injuries falls within the scope of specialized knowledge.

3. The Object of the Crime

The direct object of the crime is the health of another person.

At the same time, human life is not the direct object of Article 107 of the Criminal Code.

If the actions of the perpetrator result in the victim's death, it becomes necessary to examine:

• whether there was an initial intent to cause harm to health;
• whether the death was encompassed by the perpetrator's intent;
• whether the death occurred through negligence;
• whether there are grounds for qualification under another Article of the Criminal Code.

Thus, the distinction between Articles 107 and 106 and the offenses involving the causing of death is determined primarily by the nature of the intent, the objective consequences, and the causal relationship.

4. The Objective Element of the Crime

The objective element of Article 107 consists of the intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm on the victim.

It includes:

4.1. The Act

The act may take the form of:

• striking;
• delivering several blows;
• beating;
• using an object;
• using a weapon or another means;
• pushing;
• throwing;
• otherwise exerting physical force on the body;
• in certain cases, omission, provided that the person had a legal duty to act and a real opportunity to prevent the harm.

However, in each individual case, it is necessary to establish the mechanism by which the injuries were sustained.

For example, if the victim suffers a fracture as a result of falling, it is insufficient merely to establish the fact that a conflict occurred between the parties.

It is necessary to determine:

• whether the victim was pushed;
• how the victim fell;
• whether the injury could have resulted from an independent fall;
• whether the mechanism by which the injury occurred corresponds to the prosecution's version of events;
• whether there were other causes of the injury.

5. Causal Relationship

The causal relationship is one of the key elements of proof.

It is necessary to establish:

the person's action → the specific mechanism of injury → the specific injury → the established degree of harm to health.

If a person struck the victim, but the injury occurred for another reason, criminal liability for that particular consequence cannot automatically be imposed.

This is particularly important in cases involving:

• falls;
• road traffic accidents;
• fights;
• multiple participants in a conflict;
• chronic illnesses of the victim;
• delayed medical treatment;
• repeated injuries.

In such cases, the forensic medical examination must address not only the degree of severity of the harm but also, to the extent possible, the mechanism by which the injuries occurred and their connection with the circumstances of the incident.

6. The Subjective Element: Intent

Article 107 concerns an intentional criminal offense.

This means that it is necessary to establish the perpetrator's mental attitude towards their conduct and its consequences.

In practice, it is particularly important to distinguish between:

6.1. Intent to Cause Harm to Health

For example:

Person A delivers several punches to Person B's body and head.

If it is proven that Person A understood the socially dangerous nature of their actions and desired to cause physical harm, the subjective element may be established.

6.2. Negligence

If the injury occurred as a result of negligent conduct, a different offense applies, in particular Article 114 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, rather than Article 107.

6.3. Intent to Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm

If the evidence indicates that the intent was directed towards inflicting grievous bodily harm, but harm of a lesser degree actually occurred, the issue arises as to the qualification of the conduct, taking into account the stage of implementation of the intent and the actual consequences.

Therefore, each case requires examination of:

• the nature of the instrument used;
• the part of the body where the blow was delivered;
• the number of blows;
• the force of the impact;
• the circumstances of the conflict;
• conduct preceding the incident;
• conduct following the incident;
• statements made by the accused;
• the nature of the injuries.

7. The Fundamental Difference Between Part 1 and Part 2 of Article 107

The current version provides for two main categories of offenses.

Part 1

Intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm.

The maximum punishment is imprisonment for up to two years.

Accordingly, under the rules of Article 11 of the Criminal Code, this constitutes a minor-gravity crime.

Part 2

The same act committed in the presence of the following qualifying circumstances:

1. against two or more persons;
2. against a person or their close relatives in connection with the performance of official duties or the fulfillment of professional or public obligations;
3. with particular cruelty;
4. against a person who is knowingly in a helpless state or in a state of material or other dependency;
5. by a group of persons acting upon prior conspiracy;
6. by a criminal group;
7. out of hooligan motives;
8. on the grounds of social, national, racial, or religious hatred or enmity;
9. repeatedly;
10. against a person who is knowingly a minor.

The maximum punishment is imprisonment for up to three years.

Under Article 11 of the Criminal Code, an intentional crime punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years is classified as a crime of medium gravity.

Therefore:

This distinction directly affects the limitation period for criminal prosecution.

8. Qualifying Circumstances under Part 2

8.1. Against Two or More Persons

It is necessary to prove that:

• there are at least two victims;
• harm was caused to each victim through the actions of the accused;
• the harm corresponds to the characteristics of moderate bodily harm;
• the actions were covered by a single or otherwise relevant intent.

If one person suffered moderate bodily harm and another suffered minor bodily harm, both episodes cannot automatically be qualified under Part 2 of Article 107.

9. Official Duties, Professional or Public Obligations

It is necessary to establish a causal connection between the motive for the attack and the relevant status of the victim.

The mere fact that the victim is:

• a civil servant;
• a doctor;
• a lawyer;
• a teacher;
• a military servicemember;
• a police officer;
• an employee of another profession,

does not automatically mean that this qualifying circumstance is present.

It must be proven that the attack was committed in connection with the performance of official duties or the fulfillment of professional or public obligations.

For example:

if a person assaults a doctor solely because of a personal conflict that arose outside the doctor's professional activities, the applicability of the qualifying circumstance requires additional examination.

The Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court concerning crimes against life and health requires the establishment of the actual circumstances and motive of the act.

10. Particular Cruelty

Particular cruelty must not be equated with the ordinary infliction of several blows.

To establish it, the circumstances relating to the method of committing the crime must be examined.

For example:

• prolonged beating;
• infliction of additional suffering;
• use of a method clearly intended to intensify physical suffering;
• infliction of injuries after the victim has effectively ceased resisting.

At the same time, the number of injuries alone does not constitute absolute proof of particular cruelty.

11. Helpless State and Dependency

This qualifying circumstance presupposes that the perpetrator was aware of the victim's condition.

For example:

• a serious illness;
• minor age;
• physical inability to resist;
• a state of sleep;
• a condition that substantially limits the ability to defend oneself.

Material or other dependency must also be proven.

It is necessary to establish:

1. whether dependency existed;
2. whether the accused knew about it;
3. whether the accused exploited that dependency when committing the crime.

12. Commission by a Group of Persons

If the crime was committed by several persons, it is necessary to determine the role of each participant.

It must be established:

• who delivered the blows;
• who restrained the victim;
• who prevented the victim from defending themselves;
• who used an object;
• whether there was a prior conspiracy;
• whether there was a common intent.

All participants cannot automatically be found guilty under Part 2 of Article 107 solely on the basis of their presence at the scene.

The liability of accomplices is determined in accordance with the rules of the General Part of the Criminal Code concerning complicity.

13. Hooligan Motive

A hooligan motive requires particularly careful assessment of the evidence.

The mere fact that the crime was committed:

• on the street;
• in a public place;
• near a restaurant;
• in the presence of other persons,

does not automatically establish the existence of a hooligan motive.

The Supreme Court expressly clarifies that the infliction of harm to health must not be qualified as committed out of hooligan motives solely because of the location where it occurred or the presence of bystanders, if the actual motive was personal hostility, jealousy, revenge, or similar circumstances.

This is of considerable practical importance.

14. Motive of Hatred or Enmity

For this qualifying circumstance to apply, the following must be proven:

• the specific motive;
• the direction of the hatred or enmity;
• the causal connection between the motive and the crime.

An assumption made by the investigation is insufficient.

15. Repeated Commission

When applying the qualifying circumstance of repeated commission, it is necessary to take into account the applicable rules of the General Part of the Criminal Code.

The following must be distinguished:

• a single episode;
• a combination of criminal offenses;
• repeated commission;
• recidivism.

These are not identical legal institutions.

16. Knowingly Being a Minor

The key word here is “knowingly.”

This means that it must be established that the perpetrator knew or was clearly aware that the victim was under the age of majority.

If the victim's appearance objectively did not allow their age to be determined and there is no evidence establishing the perpetrator's knowledge of their age, the issue of applying this qualifying circumstance must be examined with particular care.

17. Jurisdiction over the Criminal Case

As a general rule, criminal cases under Article 107 of the Criminal Code are heard by a court of first instance at the district level or an equivalent court.

Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes that district and equivalent courts have jurisdiction over all criminal cases, except for cases assigned by the Code to the jurisdiction of specialized courts.

Therefore, an ordinary criminal case under Article 107 of the Criminal Code committed by an adult is generally heard by:

• a district court;
• a city court acting as a district-level court;
• another equivalent court.

Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Criminal Cases Subject to the Jurisdiction of District and Equivalent Courts

18. Territorial Jurisdiction

The issue of territorial jurisdiction is determined in accordance with the rules of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The primary criterion is the place where the criminal offense was committed, subject to the special rules of jurisdiction.

If the crime was committed:

• in Almaty — the case is generally heard by the relevant district court of Almaty;
• in Astana — by the relevant district court;
• in a region — by the relevant district or equivalent court.

At the pre-trial investigation stage, the investigating judge of the relevant court exercises judicial control in the cases provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code.

19. Jurisdiction and the Distinction from Civil Proceedings

The issue of criminal liability itself falls within the scope of criminal proceedings.

However, the infliction of harm to health also gives rise to a civil-law claim for compensation for damages.

Therefore, a single incident may give rise to two interconnected legal areas:

Criminal law proceedings:

• establishing the fact of the crime;
• establishing guilt;
• legal qualification;
• imposition of punishment;

Civil law proceedings:

• medical treatment expenses;
• expenses for purchasing medicines;
• lost earnings;
• other property losses;
• compensation for moral damage;
• legal representative's fees and other expenses provided for by law.

Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly provides for the consideration, within criminal proceedings, of civil claims for compensation for property and moral damage directly caused by a criminal offense.

20. State Duty

20.1. In Criminal Proceedings

The victim is not required to pay state duty for the conduct of criminal prosecution.

Criminal proceedings constitute a form of public exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

 21. State Duty in a Civil Claim Filed in Criminal Proceedings

It is particularly important that, when filing a civil claim within the framework of criminal proceedings, the civil claimant is exempt from paying the state duty.

This is expressly reflected in Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 20, 2005, “On the Consideration of Civil Claims in Criminal Proceedings.”

If the civil claim is granted, the court resolves the issue of the state duty in relation to the defendant.

Consequently, the victim should not postpone filing claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages solely because of concerns about having to pay the state duty in advance.

Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Civil Claims in Criminal Proceedings

22. Pre-Trial Procedure

For criminal prosecution under Article 107 of the Criminal Code, a special civil-law pre-trial claim procedure, similar to that applicable to certain categories of civil disputes, is not required.

Where a report of a criminal offence exists, criminal prosecution is carried out in accordance with the procedure established by the Criminal Procedure Code.

At the same time, the nature of the criminal prosecution is an important issue.

23. Private, Private-Public and Public Prosecution

Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes between:

1. private prosecution;
2. private-public prosecution;
3. public prosecution.

Under the current list contained in Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 107 of the Criminal Code is not included among the offences subject to private or private-public prosecution. Therefore, cases under Article 107 fall within the category of public prosecution.

This means that:

Criminal prosecution under Article 107 does not depend exclusively on the victim's desire to continue the proceedings.

The prosecutor and criminal prosecution authorities conduct the prosecution in accordance with the law.

This fundamentally distinguishes Article 107 from a number of offences listed in Parts 2 and 3 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Cases of Private, Private-Public and Public Prosecution and Accusation

24. Reconciliation Between the Parties

Despite the public nature of the prosecution, Article 68 of the Criminal Code is of fundamental importance.

Part 1 of Article 68 provides for exemption from criminal liability of a person who has committed:

• a criminal misdemeanour;
• a minor offence;
• an offence of medium gravity,

provided that the person:

1. has reconciled with the victim or applicant;
2. including through mediation;
3. has made reparation for the harm caused;
4. and the offence is not associated with causing death.

Consequently:

Part 1 of Article 107 of the Criminal Code

Since it falls within the category of minor offences, it in principle falls within the scope of the mechanism provided for by Article 68 of the Criminal Code.

Part 2 of Article 107 of the Criminal Code

Since it falls within the category of offences of medium gravity, it also in principle falls within the scope of Part 1 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code, provided that there are no exceptions established by law.

25. Conditions for Reconciliation

For Article 68 to be applied, a combination of conditions must be met.

First — the relevant category of offence

For Article 107:

• Part 1 — minor offence;
• Part 2 — offence of medium gravity.

Second — the existence of a victim

The Supreme Court indicates that the application of the relevant part of Article 68 presupposes the existence of a victim or, in cases provided for by law, an applicant.

Third — genuine reconciliation

It must be established that the conflict has actually been resolved.

Fourth — making reparation for the harm caused

A statement such as “I have forgiven the accused” does not always replace the need to establish the issue of compensation for the harm caused.

26. Making Reparation for Harm

The Supreme Court indicates that making reparation for harm must be:

• genuine;
• completed before the final decision is made;
• consistent with the circumstances of the particular case.

If the parties have a dispute regarding the amount of compensation for the harm caused, this may indicate that full reconciliation has not been achieved.

Depending on the circumstances, reparation for harm may be made through:

• payment of money;
• payment for medical treatment;
• reimbursement of expenses;
• other methods;
• a combination of financial compensation and other actions.

27. Mediation

Mediation is expressly provided for in Article 68 of the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, under Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the victim has the right to reconcile with the suspect, accused or defendant, including through mediation.

In practice, it is advisable to formalise the outcome of reconciliation as specifically as possible:

• the parties acknowledge the fact of reconciliation;
• the amount of compensation is specified;
• receipt of the funds is confirmed;
• the absence of property claims or the specific outstanding amount of such claims is indicated;
• the procedure for compensation is established;
• the absence of pressure is confirmed;
• the voluntary nature of the statement is indicated.

28. Particular Importance of the Voluntary Nature of Reconciliation

The Supreme Court expressly indicates that the victim's voluntary participation and freedom of expression of will are matters to be established in the course of proving the case.

If a statement of reconciliation has been obtained through coercion, it cannot serve as a lawful basis for exemption from criminal liability.

Therefore, during the court hearing, it is necessary to establish:

• whether the victim understands the consequences of terminating the case;
• whether the victim has genuinely reconciled;
• whether compensation has been received;
• whether any pressure has been exerted;
• whether any claims remain outstanding.

29. Reconciliation and a Civil Claim

Particular caution must be exercised where the victim is also a civil claimant.

Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court states that, when the victim submits an application to terminate the criminal case due to reconciliation between the parties, the court must explain the consequences of terminating the case, including the consequences for the civil claim.

Therefore, before signing an agreement, it is necessary to determine:

whether the payment settles only the criminal-law conflict or simultaneously covers all civil claims.

30. Persons Participating in Criminal Proceedings

The following persons may participate in proceedings under Article 107 of the Criminal Code:

On the prosecution side:

• prosecutor;
• investigator;
• inquiry officer — depending on the form of investigation;
• victim;
• victim's representative;
• civil claimant;
• representative of the civil claimant.

On the defence side:

• suspect;
• accused;
• defendant;
• defence counsel;
• legal representative — where there are grounds for such participation;
• civil defendant;
• representative of the civil defendant.

Other participants:

• witness;
• expert;
• specialist;
• interpreter;
• attesting witness — in cases provided for by law;
• court hearing secretary;
• court bailiff and other procedural officials.

31. Victim

Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code defines a victim as a person in respect of whom there are grounds to believe that a criminal offence has directly caused:

• moral harm;
• physical harm;
• property damage.

The criminal prosecution authority is obliged to recognise a person as a victim without delay where the grounds provided for by law exist.

The victim has the right to:

• give testimony;
• submit evidence;
• file motions;
• have a representative;
• familiarise themselves with the case materials;
• participate in court proceedings;
• support the prosecution;
• appeal decisions;
• file a civil claim;
• demand compensation for harm;
• reconcile with the accused in cases provided for by law.

32. Suspect

Article 64 of the Criminal Procedure Code defines the procedural status of a suspect.

The suspect has the right to:

• know what they are suspected of;
• have defence counsel;
• give or refuse to give testimony;
• submit evidence;
• file motions;
• raise objections;
• use the services of an interpreter;
• appeal actions and decisions;
• familiarise themselves with procedural documents;
• reconcile with the victim;
• participate in investigative actions provided for by law.

33. Defence Counsel

The participation of defence counsel is of particular importance in cases under Article 107, since the evidentiary basis is formed at the initial stage:

• initial statements;
• medical documents;
• explanations from eyewitnesses;
• video recordings;
• inspection results;
• seized items;
• expert examinations.

Defence counsel should monitor not only the court stage but also the initial procedural actions.

34. Evidence and Proof

In cases under Article 107, the subject matter of proof can be conditionally divided into the following blocks:

Block 1 — the event

Did the act that resulted in the injury actually occur?

Block 2 — the person

Who committed the act?

Block 3 — the mechanism

How exactly was the injury caused?

Block 4 — the consequence

What harm was caused to health?

Block 5 — causal relationship

Is the harm related to the actions of the accused?

Block 6 — guilt

Was there intent?

Block 7 — legal classification

Are there circumstances specified in Part 2 of Article 107?

Block 8 — harm

What is the amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage?

35. Main Types of Evidence

The most common types of evidence include:

1. forensic medical examination report;
2. medical records;
3. ambulance service certificates;
4. medical history;
5. X-ray images;
6. computed tomography scans;
7. magnetic resonance imaging scans;
8. photographs of injuries;
9. video recordings;
10. testimony of the victim;
11. testimony of witnesses;
12. testimony of the suspect;
13. inspection records;
14. physical evidence;
15. correspondence;
16. audio recordings;
17. recordings of telephone conversations — where there are lawful grounds;
18. data from surveillance cameras;
19. expert opinions concerning the mechanism by which the injuries were sustained.

36. Forensic Medical Examination

In cases involving bodily injury, this is a central type of evidence.

The Supreme Court's regulatory resolution expressly indicates the need for a forensic examination to determine the extent and degree of severity of harm to health.

The expert may be asked the following questions:

1. What bodily injuries are present?
2. Where are they located?
3. How old are they?
4. What was the mechanism by which they were caused?
5. What is the degree of severity of the harm caused to health?
6. Is there a causal relationship between the injury and the alleged incident?
7. Could the injuries have occurred through the mechanism described by the victim?

37. It Is Not Sufficient to Limit the Conclusion to the Statement “There Is a Fracture”

For example, the mere presence of a fracture is not automatically sufficient grounds for classification under Article 107.

It is necessary to determine:

• what specific fracture occurred;
• its consequences;
• the duration of the health disorder;
• the degree of loss of working capacity;
• whether it was life-threatening;
• whether there were other injuries.

It is precisely the legally significant combination of these medical criteria that makes it possible to determine the degree of severity of the harm.

38. Additional and Repeat Examinations

Where contradictions exist, grounds may arise for:

• an additional examination;
• a repeat examination;
• a comprehensive examination.

For example, where:

• the initial examination was conducted at an early stage;
• new medical documents have emerged;
• the initial data were incomplete;
• the conclusion contains internal contradictions;
• experts assess the mechanism of injury differently.

The defence has the right to raise the issue of the need to verify the expert's conclusion.

39. Photographic and Video Evidence

Video recordings may be of particular importance in cases involving bodily injuries.

For example, a video recording may establish:

• who initiated the conflict;
• the number of blows;
• the nature of the movements;
• whether an object was used;
• the position of the victim;
• the fall;
• actions taken after the fall.

However, video recordings must be assessed together with medical data.

Video shows the process, while the expert establishes the medical consequences.

40. Witness Testimony

Witness testimony is assessed based on:

• directness of perception;
• consistency;
• internal coherence;
• correspondence with other evidence;
• the presence of any personal interest.

Witnesses whose testimony may be particularly problematic include those who:

• were intoxicated;
• were located at a considerable distance;
• witnessed only part of the conflict;
• learned the circumstances from other persons.

41. Testimony of the Victim

The victim is a participant in the proceedings; however, their testimony should not be considered in isolation from other evidence.

Particular attention should be paid to contradictions concerning:

• where the conflict occurred;
• who started the fight;
• how many blows were delivered;
• what object was used;
• where the blows were directed;
• when the symptoms appeared;
• when medical assistance was sought.

42. Medical Documents and Chronological Sequence

The following sequence may be relevant to the defence or prosecution:

conflict → sustaining an injury → seeking medical assistance → diagnosis → treatment → recovery.

If there is a significant period between the incident and seeking medical assistance, the reasons for the delay must be examined.

The fact of seeking medical assistance late does not, in itself, disprove the commission of a criminal offence, but it may be relevant to:

• the age of the injury;
• the mechanism of the injury;
• alternative causes;
• the reliability of certain statements.

43. Procedural Compulsion

The Criminal Procedure Code provides for various measures of procedural compulsion.

These include, in particular:

• detention;
• preventive measures;
• compulsory appearance;
• monetary penalties;
• obligations and restrictions provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code;
• other procedural measures.

44. Detention

Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for detention as a measure of procedural compulsion.

For an offence punishable by deprivation of liberty, detention is permitted where the grounds provided for by the Code exist, for example:

• the person is caught while committing the offence or immediately thereafter;
• eyewitnesses directly identify the person;
• obvious traces of the offence are discovered;
• reliable information provided for by law is available.

Under the specified provision, the general detention period may not exceed 72 hours from the moment of actual detention, subject to exceptions and procedures provided for by law.

45. Preventive Measures

Article 137 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the following:

1. a written undertaking not to leave the place of residence and to behave appropriately;
2. personal surety;
3. placement of a servicemember under the supervision of the military command;
4. placement of a minor under supervision;
5. bail;
6. house arrest;
7. detention in custody.

In relation to an offence under Part 1 of Article 107, it is necessary to take into account the maximum sanction and the specific circumstances of the case.

When selecting a preventive measure, the risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code must be taken into account, rather than merely the gravity of the charge itself.

46. Detention in Custody

The mere existence of a charge under Article 107 does not automatically mean that a person must be placed in custody.

The grounds provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code and the relevant risks must be established.

In practical terms, the defence should analyse:

• whether the person has a permanent place of residence;
• family status;
• employment;
• health condition;
• whether the person has children;
• previous convictions;
• conduct after the incident;
• attempts to abscond;
• attempts to influence witnesses;
• the possibility and necessity of applying a less restrictive measure.

47. Prohibition on Approaching and Security Measures

In cases involving violence, it may be necessary to ensure the safety of the victim.

The victim has the right to apply for security measures, including a prohibition on approaching as provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code.

This is particularly relevant where the accused and the victim:

• live near each other;
• are relatives;
• work together;
• have other ongoing social relationships.

48. Compulsory Appearance of the Victim

If the victim fails to appear when summoned without valid reasons, the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the possibility of compulsory appearance and the imposition of a monetary penalty in accordance with the established procedure.

However, when assessing the failure to appear, the following circumstances must be taken into account:

• illness;
• being admitted to hospital;
• a business trip;
• other objective reasons.

49. Civil Claim

A civil claim within criminal proceedings is one of the most important means of protecting the interests of the victim.

Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows claims for:

• pecuniary damage;
• non-pecuniary damage;
• medical treatment expenses;
• funeral expenses — in relevant cases;
• insurance payments and other expenses provided for by law;
• expenses related to participation in the proceedings;
• representation expenses within the limits provided for by law.

50. What Can Be Claimed in Cases of Moderate Bodily Injury

Depending on the circumstances:

Pecuniary Damage

• medical treatment;
• medication;
• diagnostic procedures;
• rehabilitation;
• transportation expenses, where directly related to medical treatment;
• other documented expenses.

Loss of Income

Where there are legal grounds and supporting evidence, a claim may be made for compensation for lost earnings.

Non-Pecuniary Damage

Since a personal non-property benefit — health — has been violated, the victim may claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

51. Amount of Non-Pecuniary Damage

The amount of compensation is not determined by a simple mathematical formula.

The court takes into account the totality of circumstances, including:

• the nature of the injury;
• duration of treatment;
• physical suffering;
• emotional and psychological suffering;
• consequences for everyday life;
• duration of recovery;
• degree of fault;
• circumstances in which the act was committed.

The Supreme Court considers health to be a personal non-property benefit, the violation of which may result in non-pecuniary damage.

52. Time Limit for Filing a Civil Claim

This is one of the most important issues.

It is necessary to distinguish between:

A. the time limit for filing a civil claim within criminal proceedings;

and

B. the limitation period applicable to a civil claim.

Regulatory Resolution No. 1 of the Supreme Court states that a civil claim may be filed from the commencement of pre-trial investigation until the conclusion of the judicial investigation.

Consequently, from a procedural perspective, the safest approach is to file the claim before the judicial investigation is concluded.

53. Is It Possible to File a Claim After the Criminal Proceedings Have Ended?

Yes, in certain cases, the victim may apply to the court under civil proceedings.

Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly provides that, if a claim for non-pecuniary damage was not filed during the criminal proceedings or was left without consideration, the victim has the right to file it under civil proceedings.

At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the consequences of the specific final decision in the criminal case.

54. Limitation Period for Claims for Compensation for Harm to Health

The special rule under Article 187 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan applies here.

The statute of limitations does not apply to claims for compensation for harm caused to the life or health of a citizen.

However, if a claim is filed after a considerable period of time, recovery is limited to a period of no more than three years preceding the filing of the claim.

This is fundamentally different from the ordinary three-year limitation period.

Therefore, it is legally incorrect to state:

“After three years, the victim can no longer file a claim for compensation for harm to health at all.”

The correct position is as follows:

The right to claim compensation for harm to health is not extinguished by the ordinary statute of limitations; however, where the claim is filed late, the legislator limits the period for recovery of past payments to three years.

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

55. Restoration of the Limitation Period

An important distinction must be made here.

The restoration of a procedural time limit and the restoration of a limitation period are two different legal institutions.

Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Code concerns procedural time limits.

Time limits established by the Civil Procedure Code may be restored by the court where valid reasons exist. In this case, the application must be submitted to the court where the relevant procedural action should have been performed, and the corresponding procedural action must be performed simultaneously with the application.

56. Judicial Practice on the Restoration of Procedural Time Limits

In judicial practice materials published on zakonpravo.kz, the following are considered valid reasons, in particular:

• failure to receive a judicial act in a timely manner due to the fault of the court;
• improper notification;
• illness;
• a business trip;
• other circumstances that objectively prevented the timely performance of a procedural action.

At the same time, the court assesses not only the reason itself but also the conduct of the person after the obstacle ceased to exist.

For example:

if a person learns about a decision several months later and then takes no action for an extended period, the likelihood of restoration of the time limit decreases.

57. Statute of Limitations and Article 185 of the Civil Code

If the matter concerns not a special claim for compensation for harm to health but another civil claim, the issue of restoring the limitation period is governed by the Civil Code.

The court assesses whether the reasons for missing the limitation period are valid.

The mere fact of applying to law enforcement authorities does not always mean that the limitation period for a subsequent civil claim is automatically preserved.

For example, materials published on zakonpravo.kz include cases in which courts examined when the claimant became reliably aware of the violation of their rights and what actions they took thereafter.

58. Limitation Period for Criminal Prosecution

The limitation period for criminal liability must be distinguished separately from the civil limitation period.

Under Article 71 of the Criminal Code:

• minor offence — 2 years;
• offence of medium gravity — 5 years;
• serious offence — 10 years;
• especially serious offence — 15 years.

Therefore:

Part 1 of Article 107

Maximum penalty — up to 2 years → minor offence → general limitation period for criminal liability of 2 years.

Part 2 of Article 107

Maximum penalty — up to 3 years → offence of medium gravity → limitation period of 5 years.

59. Suspension of the Limitation Period

The limitation period is suspended if the person evades the investigation or trial.

After the person's detention or voluntary surrender, the limitation period resumes.

Therefore, the mere passage of calendar time does not always automatically mean that the criminal-law limitation period has expired.

60. Evidentiary Significance of Time

In cases under Article 107, the time factor has a dual significance.

On the one hand:

• the victim may seek legal protection after a considerable period of time;
• a civil claim for compensation for harm to health is not extinguished by the ordinary statute of limitations.

On the other hand:

• medical data may lose their evidentiary value;
• photographs may be unavailable;
• video recordings may be deleted;
• witnesses may forget the circumstances;
• medical documentation may be incomplete.

For this very reason, in practical terms, it is advisable for the victim to do the following as soon as possible:

1. seek medical assistance;
2. have the injuries documented;
3. preserve medical documents;
4. preserve photographs and video recordings;
5. identify witnesses;
6. file motions requesting the collection of video recordings.

The English translation preserves the original structure and numbering (Sections 61–109), all legal references, tables, examples, and hyperlinks. No links have been removed or modified.

61. Grounds for Termination of Criminal Proceedings

Depending on the circumstances, criminal proceedings may be terminated:

• where the event of the criminal offence is absent;
• where the elements of the criminal offence are absent;
• where the offence has not been proven;
• upon expiry of the limitation period;
• upon reconciliation, provided that the conditions set out in Article 68 are met;
• on other grounds предусмотрed by the CPC.

Article 36 of the CPC regulates circumstances that allow criminal prosecution not to be carried out, including certain cases of exemption from criminal liability.

62. Reconciliation and the Mandatory Application of Article 68

Where all the conditions предусмотрed by law for the application of Part 1 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code have been established, this provision is mandatory in nature.

The Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court on reconciliation specifically states that Article 68 must be applied where the required combination of conditions has been established.

This means that the court cannot simply state:

"The Court considers that terminating the proceedings on the grounds of reconciliation is inappropriate."

Specific legal grounds must be established.

63. Cases in Which Reconciliation Is Impossible

Part 4 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code contains a list of exceptions.

In particular, this institution does not apply to certain categories of criminal offences, including:

• torture;
• certain criminal offences against the sexual inviolability of minors;
• criminal offences involving violence against minors;
• corruption-related criminal offences;
• terrorist criminal offences;
• extremist criminal offences;
• criminal offences committed as part of a criminal group;
• certain cases of repeated commission of a criminal offence following a previous exemption from criminal liability on the grounds of reconciliation;
• human trafficking.

Therefore, in cases under Part 2 of Article 107, it is additionally necessary to verify whether the specific circumstances fall within any of the exceptions.

64. Where the Criminal Offence Is Committed by a Group

This is particularly important for Part 2 of Article 107.

If the qualifying element is the commission of a criminal offence by a criminal group, paragraph 7 of Part 4 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code must be taken into account, as it excludes the application of the reconciliation mechanism in the relevant cases.

Consequently, it is incorrect to mechanically assert:

"Proceedings under Article 107 are always terminated on the grounds of reconciliation."

The correct formulation is:

Part 1 and most ordinary cases under Part 2 of Article 107 potentially fall within the scope of Article 68 of the Criminal Code; however, before terminating the proceedings, all exceptions under Part 4 of Article 68 must be verified.

65. Procedural Agreement

In appropriate cases, the defence may also consider the institution of a procedural agreement.

However, a procedural agreement and reconciliation are different procedural mechanisms.

Reconciliation is aimed at exemption from criminal liability where the conditions of Article 68 are fulfilled.

A procedural agreement has a different legal structure and consequences.

66. Subordinate Regulatory Legal Acts

When applying Article 107, it is not sufficient to rely exclusively on the Criminal Code.

Subordinate regulatory legal acts governing the following matters play a significant role:

• forensic examination;
• medical examination;
• organisation of investigations;
• the procedure for conducting expert examinations;
• procedural matters;
• the activities of law enforcement authorities.

However, any subordinate legal act must comply with an act having higher legal force.

67. The Law "On Legal Acts"

The system of regulatory legal acts is governed by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Legal Acts".

Article 1 defines subordinate regulatory legal acts as regulatory acts issued:

• on the basis of a law;
• for the purpose of implementing a law;
• for the further implementation of a law or a higher-ranking regulatory legal act.

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Legal Acts"

68. Hierarchy of Regulatory Legal Acts

Article 7 of the Law "On Legal Acts" distinguishes between the principal and derivative types of regulatory legal acts.

The principal regulatory legal acts include, in particular:

• the Constitution;
• codes;
• laws;
• regulatory decrees;
• regulatory resolutions of the Government;
• regulatory resolutions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court;
• regulatory orders of ministers and other heads of central state bodies;
• relevant acts of local authorities.

Derivative regulatory legal acts include, in particular:

• rules;
• instructions;
• regulations;
• technical regulations.

Derivative acts are adopted or approved through principal regulatory legal acts and constitute an integral whole with them.

69. Principle of Direct Effect

Article 11 of the Law "On Legal Acts" provides for the direct effect of regulatory legal acts.

If a regulatory legal act has entered into force, its application generally does not require the adoption of additional instructions.

If the regulatory legal act itself provides for the need to adopt an additional regulatory act, the corresponding structure of the principal and additional acts shall apply.

70. State Registration of Regulatory Legal Acts

Article 53 of the Law "On Legal Acts" regulates the state registration of regulatory legal acts and the maintenance of:

• the State Register of Regulatory Legal Acts;
• the Reference Control Bank of Regulatory Legal Acts.

This is important when verifying the current version of a subordinate regulatory legal act.

71. Regulatory Resolutions of the Courts

Regulatory resolutions of the Supreme Court occupy a special place.

The Law "On Legal Acts" includes regulatory resolutions of the Supreme Court in the system of current legislation.

The following are particularly important for cases under Article 107:

1. Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11 May 2007 No. 1 "On the Qualification of Certain Criminal Offences Against Human Life and Health";
2. Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 June 2005 No. 1 "On the Consideration of Civil Claims in Criminal Proceedings";
3. Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 21 June 2001 No. 4 "On Judicial Practice in Applying Article 68 of the Criminal Code";
4. Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 25 June 2015 No. 4 "On Certain Issues of Sentencing";
5. Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan on compensation for moral harm.

A collection of regulatory legal acts relating to criminal legislation is available on zakonpravo.kz.

72. Regulatory Resolution on the Qualification of Criminal Offences Against Life and Health

This is one of the principal subordinate sources for the practical application of Article 107.

Its significance lies in distinguishing between:

• murder;
• grievous bodily harm;
• bodily harm of medium severity;
• minor bodily harm;
• other criminal offences against life and health.

It is particularly important that the document draws attention to the need to determine the severity of bodily harm through expert examination.

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

73. Regulatory Resolution on Sentencing

When imposing a sentence, the court takes into account:

• the category of the criminal offence;
• the circumstances of its commission;
• the degree of public danger;
• the form of guilt;
• the stage of the criminal offence;
• the degree of participation;
• the consequences;
• mitigating circumstances;
• aggravating circumstances;
• information concerning the offender's personality.

The rule concerning alternative sanctions is particularly important.

If an article provides for several types of punishment, the court must consider the possibility of imposing a less severe punishment and provide reasons for choosing a more severe one.

This is directly relevant to Part 1 of Article 107, since its sanction provides for alternative types of punishment.

74. Practical Significance of the Sanction under Part 1 of Article 107

The sanction under Part 1 of Article 107 provides for the following alternatives:

• a fine;
• corrective labour;
• community service;
• deprivation of liberty.

Therefore, the defence is entitled to raise the issue of the impossibility or lack of justification for imposing the most severe sanction without proper reasoning.

The court must take into account the rules of the General Part of the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court's explanations concerning the selection of punishment.

75. Qualification Example No. 1

A and B had an argument.

A struck B once with a fist.

B fell.

A forensic medical examination established bodily harm of medium severity.

At the same time:

• no weapon was involved;
• there was no prior conspiracy;
• there was no hooligan motive;
• there were no other qualifying elements.

If intent is proven, the act may be qualified under Part 1 of Article 107 of the Criminal Code.

Category — a minor offence.

Article 68 of the Criminal Code may be applied if the relevant conditions are met.

76. Example No. 2 — Two Victims

A struck B and C.

Both sustained bodily harm of medium severity.

If intent and the relevant circumstances are proven, the question arises as to the application of subparagraph 1) of Part 2 of Article 107.

However, the following must be established separately:

• the harm caused to each victim;
• the causal relationship;
• the role of the accused;
• whether there was a single or separate intent.

77. Example No. 3 — Personal Animosity

A and B had been in conflict for a long time.

During a personal argument, A struck B, causing bodily harm of medium severity.

The incident occurred on the street.

The mere fact that the incident took place on the street does not indicate a hooligan motive.

If it is established that personal animosity was the reason for the incident, the qualifying element of hooligan motives must be critically examined. This approach is reflected in the Supreme Court's explanations.

78. Example No. 4 — A Minor Victim

A knows that B is a minor.

A intentionally causes B bodily harm of medium severity.

If A's actual knowledge of the victim's age is proven, the question arises as to the application of paragraph 8 of Part 2 of Article 107.

However, if A objectively did not know and could not have known the victim's age, the evidence relating specifically to the element of "knowing in advance" must be examined.

79. Example No. 5 — Group

Three persons participate in a conflict.

One strikes a blow.

Another restrains the victim.

The third stands nearby.

It is not permissible to automatically qualify the actions of all of them in the same manner.

The following must be established:

• common intent;
• agreement;
• the functional role of each person;
• each person's contribution to causing the harm.

80. Example No. 6 — Necessary Defence

If the accused claims that they acted in order to defend themselves against an attack, the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning necessary defence must be examined.

The mere fact that bodily harm of medium severity was caused does not exclude the possibility of applying the provisions concerning lawful defence.

The following must be established:

• who initiated the attack;
• whether an actual threat existed;
• whether the attack was ongoing;
• whether the actions of the person defending themselves were proportionate to the circumstances.

81. Example No. 7 — Mutual Fight

A mutual fight in itself does not exclude criminal liability.

However, in respect of each person, the following must be established:

• what specific actions that person committed;
• who sustained the harm;
• the exact nature of the harm;
• who caused it;
• whether intent was present.

The accusation cannot be based solely on the fact that a person participated in a fight.

82. Example No. 8 — Falling

A pushed B.

B fell and sustained a fracture.

The key question is:

Was the fall the direct result of the push?

If the expert confirms that the mechanism of the injury corresponds to the circumstances of the incident, a causal relationship may be established.

If the injury arose for another reason, the issue of legal qualification becomes different.

83. Example No. 9 — Subsequent Deterioration of Health

Following the conflict, the victim initially received medical assistance, and several days later their condition deteriorated.

It is necessary to determine:

• whether the deterioration was related to the initial injury;
• whether any new circumstances arose;
• whether the treatment regimen was followed;
• whether additional injuries were sustained.

All subsequent medical consequences cannot automatically be attributed to the accused.

84. Example No. 10 — Several Medical Opinions

If the first examination establishes minor bodily harm, while a subsequent examination establishes bodily harm of medium severity, the reasons for the discrepancy must be determined.

Possible reasons include:

• progression of the illness;
• new documents;
• changes in medical data;
• methodological differences;
• incompleteness of the initial examination.

In such a situation, the defence is entitled to raise the issue of an additional or repeated expert examination.

85. Practical Position of the Victim

The victim should:

1. seek medical assistance immediately;
2. document all injuries;
3. retain the originals of all medical documents;
4. photograph the injuries;
5. identify witnesses;
6. report the existence of video cameras;
7. file a motion for their seizure;
8. monitor recognition as a victim;
9. file a civil claim;
10. document expenses;
11. determine the amount of moral harm;
12. use mediation if desired;
13. refrain from signing a reconciliation agreement until the consequences are fully understood.

86. Practical Position of the Defence

The defence should examine the following:

Medical Block

• the correctness of the expert examination;
• the original medical documents;
• the mechanism of the injury;
• the age of the injuries;
• the causal relationship;
• the existence of alternative causes.

Evidence Block

• the lawfulness of obtaining the evidence;
• the consistency of statements;
• the existence of contradictions;
• video recordings;
• witness statements.

Qualification Block

• the existence of intent;
• the absence of qualifying elements;
• the correctness of determining the category of the criminal offence.

Procedural Block

• the lawfulness of the detention;
• compliance with the right to defence;
• the procedure for questioning;
• the admissibility of evidence;
• the lawfulness of the expert examination;
• compliance with procedural time limits.

87. What a Lawyer Should Pay Particular Attention To

In cases under Article 107, it is useful to prepare a separate table:

88. International Legal Standards

The application of Article 107 must be considered in the context of Kazakhstan's international human rights obligations.

The following are of particular importance:

• the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
• the Convention against Torture;
• international standards concerning the treatment of victims;
• fair trial standards.

89. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

In General Comment No. 20, the UN Human Rights Committee notes that Article 7 is intended to protect human dignity and the physical and mental integrity of the individual.

In the context of criminal proceedings, this means the need to ensure:

• effective investigation of violence;
• protection of the victim's person;
• compliance with the prohibition of unlawful treatment;
• exclusion of evidence obtained through prohibited treatment.

90. Right to a Fair Trial

Article 14 of the ICCPR provides for guarantees of a fair trial.

The UN Committee emphasises:

• equality before the courts;
• independence;
• impartiality;
• access to justice;
• procedural equality of the parties.

For proceedings under Article 107, this means that:

the protection of the victim cannot be carried out by violating the rights of the accused, and the protection of the accused cannot be carried out by disregarding the rights of the victim.

91. International Standards on Victims' Rights

The 1985 UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power considers persons who have suffered the following to be victims:

• physical harm;
• mental harm;
• emotional suffering;
• economic loss;
• substantial impairment of fundamental rights.

The document provides for the need to ensure that victims have:

• access to justice;
• the opportunity to obtain compensation;
• respectful treatment;
• information about the proceedings;
• safety;
• protection against intimidation and retaliation.

92. Convention against Torture

If the infliction of harm is connected with the actions of a public official and bears signs of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the Convention against Torture must also be analysed.

Article 14 of the Convention establishes the right of a victim of torture to redress and fair and adequate compensation.

However, ordinary domestic infliction of bodily harm of medium severity by a private individual does not, in itself, constitute the criminal offence of torture.

Therefore, international provisions must be applied taking into account the factual nature of the particular case.

93. Relationship Between the Criminal Code, the CPC and Subordinate Acts

In practical terms, the legal framework under Article 107 may be presented as follows:

Constitution

↓

International treaties ratified by the Republic of Kazakhstan

↓

Criminal Code

↓

Criminal Procedure Code

↓

Civil Code

↓

Civil Procedure Code

↓

Law "On Legal Acts" and other laws

↓

Regulatory resolutions of the Supreme Court

↓

Regulatory orders of authorised state bodies

↓

Rules and instructions

At the same time, a lower-ranking act cannot contradict an act having higher legal force.

94. Main Regulatory Acts Relevant to Cases under Article 107 of the Criminal Code

For practical work, it is advisable for a lawyer to prepare the following minimum set of documents:

1. Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan

In particular, provisions concerning:

• human dignity;
• judicial protection;
• personal liberty;
• the right to qualified legal assistance;
• the presumption of innocence.

2. Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

In particular:

• Article 3 — basic concepts;
• Article 11 — categories of criminal offences;
• Article 14 and subsequent provisions concerning multiplicity of criminal offences;
• Article 28 — complicity;
• Articles 52–55 — sentencing;
• Article 68 — reconciliation;
• Article 71 — limitation periods;
• Article 106 — grievous bodily harm;
• Article 107 — bodily harm of medium severity;
• Article 108-1 — minor bodily harm;
• Article 109-1 — battery;
• Article 110 — torture;
• Article 114 — negligent infliction of harm.

3. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

In particular:

• Article 32 — types of prosecution;
• Articles 35–36 — termination of proceedings;
• Article 64 — suspect;
• Article 71 — victim;
• provisions concerning defence counsel;
• provisions concerning evidence;
• provisions concerning detention;
• Article 137 — preventive measures;
• Article 166 — civil claims;
• Article 306 — jurisdiction.

95. Key Regulatory Resolutions of the Supreme Court

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

"On the Qualification of Certain Criminal Offences Against Human Life and Health".

Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 4 dated 21 June 2001

"On Judicial Practice in Applying Article 68 of the Criminal Code".

Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 1 dated 20 June 2005

"On the Consideration of Civil Claims in Criminal Proceedings".

Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 4 dated 25 June 2015

"On Certain Issues of Sentencing".

These documents are of substantial importance in the qualification and consideration of a case.

96. Specific Feature: Changes in Legislation Over Time

In criminal proceedings, it is always necessary to determine the version of the Criminal Code that was in force at the time the act was committed.

It is not permissible to automatically apply the version of the law in force at the time the judgment is delivered.

When criminal legislation changes, the rules governing its application over time and its retroactive effect must be examined.

This is particularly important in cases involving:

• changes to sanctions;
• changes to qualifying elements;
• decriminalisation;
• changes to reconciliation rules;
• changes to limitation periods.

97. Significance of Judicial Practice

Judicial practice under Article 107 generally focuses on four key issues:

1. Correct determination of the severity of the harm.

2. Proof of the causal relationship.

3. Proof of intent.

4. Existence of a qualifying element.

Therefore, a formally established diagnosis does not, by itself, resolve the issue of guilt.

98. Typical Prosecution Error No. 1

"There is bodily harm of medium severity — therefore, the accused is guilty."

This is incorrect reasoning.

The existence of harm proves the consequence.

However, it is necessary to prove:

who caused it, how, when, with what mental attitude and under what circumstances.

99. Typical Prosecution Error No. 2

"The victim identified the accused — that is sufficient."

The victim's statements must be assessed together with the other evidence.

This is particularly important if:

• the conflict occurred in darkness;
• there were many participants;
• the victim was under stress;
• a significant period of time has passed;
• there is a contradiction with the video recording.

100. Typical Defence Error No. 1

"The expert examination did not establish grievous bodily harm — therefore, there is no criminal offence."

This is incorrect.

If the expert established bodily harm of medium severity, this may correspond to Article 107.

Therefore, the defence must analyse not only the fact of the expert examination itself, but also:

• the original materials;
• the methodology;
• the answers to the questions;
• the mechanism;
• the age of the injuries;
• the causal relationship.

101. Typical Defence Error No. 2

"The victim has forgiven the accused — the criminal proceedings are automatically terminated."

It is necessary to verify:

• the category of the criminal offence;
• the existence of a victim;
• whether reconciliation is genuine;
• whether the harm has been made good;
• the exceptions under Part 4 of Article 68;
• voluntariness.

102. Practical Defence Algorithm under Part 1 of Article 107

Step 1

Determine the date of commission of the act.

Step 2

Establish the version of the Criminal Code in force on that date.

Step 3

Verify the correctness of the qualification under Article 107.

Step 4

Obtain the full forensic medical expert report.

Step 5

Examine the original medical documents.

Step 6

Verify the causal relationship.

Step 7

Analyse intent.

Step 8

Verify the absence of qualifying elements.

Step 9

Verify the limitation period under Article 71 of the Criminal Code.

Step 10

Consider the possibility of applying Article 68 of the Criminal Code.

103. Practical Algorithm for the Victim

Step 1

Medical documentation of the injuries.

Step 2

Recognition as a victim.

Step 3

Motion for a forensic examination.

Step 4

Preservation of evidence.

Step 5

Filing a civil claim.

Step 6

Documentation of expenses.

Step 7

Calculation of moral harm.

Step 8

If necessary, a motion for security measures.

Step 9

If necessary, mediation.

Step 10

Monitoring the final decision on the civil claim.

104. Final Legal Distinction

The most important practical table:

105. Key Conclusion for Legal Practice

In cases under Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the central issue is not the mere fact that bodily injury exists, but proof of the entire criminal-law framework:

act → person causing the harm → mechanism → injury → degree of severity → causal relationship → intent → qualifying element → legal qualification.

Any weak link in this chain may substantially affect the final qualification.

At the same time, the most vulnerable evidentiary areas are usually:

1. mechanism of the injury;
2. causal relationship;
3. subjective element;
4. qualifying elements;
5. reliability of statements;
6. conclusions of the forensic medical examination.

106. Key Conclusion on Reconciliation

Under Part 1 of Article 107, the possibility of terminating criminal proceedings in connection with reconciliation is one of the most significant procedural mechanisms.

Under Part 2 of Article 107, this possibility also exists, since the offence falls within the category of offences of medium severity; however, the exceptions under Part 4 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code must be verified.

Reconciliation must be:

• voluntary;
• genuine;
• confirmed;
• accompanied by making good the harm.

The Supreme Court expressly requires verification of voluntariness and the actual making good of the harm.

107. Key Conclusion on Time Limits

It is necessary to monitor three different time limits simultaneously:

1. Limitation period for criminal liability

• Part 1 of Article 107 — 2 years;
• Part 2 of Article 107 — 5 years.

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

As a general rule — from the commencement of pre-trial investigation until the end of the judicial investigation.

3. Limitation period for a claim seeking compensation for harm to health

The ordinary limitation period does not apply; however, where claims are filed late, recovery is made for no more than three years preceding the filing of the claim.

108. Final List of Official Materials on zakonpravo.kz

For practical work on a specific criminal case, I recommend keeping the following materials readily available:

1. Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
2. Article 11 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Categories of Criminal Offences
3. Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Reconciliation
4. Article 71 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Limitation Period
5. Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Types of Prosecution
6. Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Victim
7. Article 137 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Preventive Measures
8. Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Civil Claims Considered in Criminal Proceedings
9. Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Criminal Cases Subject to the Jurisdiction of District and Equivalent Courts
10. Article 187 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Claims Not Subject to the Limitation Period
11. Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 1 dated 11 May 2007 — Criminal Offences Against Life and Health
12. Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 4 dated 21 June 2001 — Reconciliation
13. Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 1 dated 20 June 2005 — Civil Claims in Criminal Proceedings
14. Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 4 dated 25 June 2015 — Sentencing
15. Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Legal Acts"

109. Conclusion

Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan constitutes an offence in which the medical criterion and the criminal-law assessment must be strictly distinguished.

The expert establishes the medical circumstances.

The investigator proves the event, the person who caused the harm, the mechanism, the causal relationship and guilt.

The prosecutor formulates and supports the accusation.

The court provides the final criminal-law qualification and resolves the issues of punishment and the civil claim.

For Part 1 of Article 107, it is fundamentally important to remember:

this is a minor offence, since the maximum sanction is two years of deprivation of liberty.

For Part 2:

this is an offence of medium severity, since the maximum sanction is three years of deprivation of liberty.

The limitation periods and the application of a number of institutions of the General Part of the Criminal Code directly depend on this.

At the same time, the public nature of criminal prosecution under Article 107 does not exclude the possibility of exemption from criminal liability in connection with reconciliation, provided that all the conditions of Article 68 of the Criminal Code are met.

Civil claims for compensation for harm to health may be considered directly together with the criminal case, and the victim is exempt from paying the state duty when filing such a claim in criminal proceedings.

The most significant practical evidence is the forensic medical examination; however, its conclusion does not relieve the prosecution of the obligation to prove the remaining elements of the criminal offence.

Ultimately, for qualification under Article 107, it is necessary to prove not merely the existence of bodily harm of medium severity, but the entire combination of legally significant circumstances:

intentional act + infliction of harm by a specific person + causal relationship + established medium severity of the harm + corresponding form of guilt + absence of grounds for a different qualification.

It is precisely this systematic approach that complies with the requirements of the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Civil Code, the Civil Procedure Code, the Law "On Legal Acts", the regulatory resolutions of the Supreme Court and international standards of fair criminal proceedings.

Note: The translation retains the legal propositions and statutory references of the source text. No separate verification of their compliance with the current legislation has been carried out.

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