Recognition of the interrogation protocol as illegal and exclusion from the list of evidence appeal to the prosecutor's office and the investigative court

Home / Cases / Recognition of the interrogation protocol as illegal and exclusion from the list of evidence appeal to the prosecutor's office and the investigative court

Recognition of the interrogation protocol as illegal and exclusion from the list of evidence appeal to the prosecutor's office and the investigative court

10 February 2026

Recognition of the interrogation protocol as illegal and exclusion from the list of evidence appeal to the prosecutor's office and the investigative court

Dear Court, the reason for our appeal to you is the gross injustice and illegality that occurred during the pre – trial investigation of the criminal case against the E. K. A. under my protection, and we are deeply dissatisfied with the irresponsible actions of unskilled employees of the police and the prosecutor's office. Their actions undermine the dignity of a law enforcement officer.

In accordance with Article 1 of the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan" on the prosecutor's office", the prosecutor's office on behalf of the state exercises High supervision over compliance with the rule of law in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan within the limits and forms established by law. In accordance with Article 5 of the law, the prosecutor's office carries out high supervision of the rule of law (hereinafter referred to as supervision).

So, as for the event, time, place, method, cause, consequences of a violation of Criminal Law, 12.04.2025 at 11:01 am, registration on the electronic portal of the e-application no. ZT-2025-01196565, to the prosecutor of the Maktaaral District of the Turkestan region on the basis of Article 105 of the CPC of the Police Department of the Maktaaral District of the Turkestan region on the action of the senior investigator of the TB of the 24, 58, 64, 65-1,78, 99, 100, 105 "I don't know," he said.:

* Adopt acts of prosecutor's supervision or acts of prosecutor's response in order to eliminate violations of the rule of law in accordance with the procedure established by law;

* Bringing to disciplinary responsibility police officers responsible for non-performance or improper performance of official duties;

* Suspect E. K. Atan on March 1, 2025 at 15 o'clock. The protocol of interrogation of a suspect between 35 minutes and 16 hours and 10 minutes - exclusion from the materials of a criminal case with the recognition of illegal and unsuitable as evidence;

* Protection of materials obtained from the prosecutor's office under prosecutor's supervision;

* Respond to this request within the time limits established by Article 105, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

As specified in Article 58 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the prosecutor is an official who exercises other powers within his competence in accordance with Article 83 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and this code, and in the presence of grounds for this, in accordance with the procedure provided for by this code, the prosecutor, by his decision, monitors the legality of pre-trial investigation.

As for the essence of the case, in the Proceedings of the senior investigator of the TB Police Department of Maktaaral District of the Police Department of the Turkestan region D. K. Zhaksylyk (further investigator), materials of the criminal case No. 255143031000056 against the E. K. AK (further suspect) on the signs of the composition of a criminal offense provided for by Part 2 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan are being considered.

During the investigation, E. K. A was recognized as a suspect for intentional acts aimed at inciting religious discord, insulting the National Honor and dignity of citizens or religious feelings, and on March 2, 2025, he was detained in accordance with Article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, arrested in a temporary detention center of the Police Department of Maktaaralsky district, and then arrested in a pre-trial detention center, sanctioned by the investigative court.

In accordance with Article 99 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, participants in criminal proceedings have the right to apply to the person conducting the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor, the judge (court) with a request to establish circumstances relevant in the criminal process, to carry out procedural actions or to make procedural decisions to ensure the rights and legitimate interests of the person applying with a petition or the person they represent.

The petition is subject to consideration and resolution as soon as it is declared. In cases where it is not possible to make a decision on the application immediately, it must be resolved no later than three days from the date of its application.

According to the investigator, "the suspect E. A. in the period from 01.07.2024 to 01.01.2025 was a resident of the House No. 11B on Kazakhstan Street, Atakent village, Maktaaral district, 23.06.1991, etc.together with E. M. in a preliminary conspiracy with 40 people in the group "Atakent Brothers" on the social network "watsap", prohibited by law to promote the religion of a negative orientation, which they profess "Dilmurat Abu – Muhammad" deliberately committed the crime of inciting religious discord by repeatedly distributing the sermons of mahamatov Dilmurat and nazratullah Abu-Mariam". "I'm sorry," he said.

The Republic of Kazakhstan, having established itself as a democratic, secular, legal and social state, its highest values are man, human life, rights and freedoms (paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution).

At the same time, everyone has the right to protect their rights and freedoms by all means that do not contradict the law and receive qualified legal assistance (paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 13 of the Constitution).

In this regard, 04.04.2025 from the side of the defense, we sent a petition to the investigator to remove the protocol of interrogation of the suspect from the materials of the criminal case, recognizing it as illegal and invalid as evidence.

On March 1, 2025, at 15 o'clock, the investigation conducted a thorough investigation of its motives. From 35 minutes to 16 hours. Within 10 minutes, the suspect completed the interrogation protocol.

Section 4 of Article 216 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan as for the specifics of interrogating a suspect, it states that in cases provided for in Article 67 of this code, the presence of a defender is mandatory, taking into account the provisions of part two of Article 69 of this code.

However, from the defense platform 03.04.2025 in the pre-trial detention center E. K. Apen during the discussion of this protocol, the answers given in it, the investigation revealed a gross violation of Section 4 of Article 216 of the criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

In fact, on March 1, 2025, at 15 o'clock. From 35 minutes to 16 hours. During the interrogation of the suspect within 10 minutes, it was found that the defender was not present, and we believe that the signature of S. Aknazarov, who was called as a defender in the protocol, was put later or with another person.

So, the investigator of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan 60-64, 80, 81, 110, 115, 197, 199, 208-210, 212, 216 it is established that the interrogation was carried out in violation of the requirements of the code without compliance with the norms of articles.

Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. When detaining a suspect, before starting any investigative actions in the presence of a suspect, the criminal prosecution body is obliged to immediately explain to the suspect his rights provided for by this code, a note is made in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect and in resolutions on recognizing the person as a suspect and qualifying the actions of the suspect.

However, the provisions of this article were formally drawn up by the investigation, and in fact the rights of the suspect before interrogation were not explained.

Factual data that is not allowed as evidence in accordance with Article 112 of the CPC, if they are obtained in violation of the requirements of this code, may contribute or contribute to the reliability of factual data obtained during a pre-trial investigation or trial of a case by depriving the participants of the process of rights guaranteed by law or by: Factual data obtained in violation of Criminal Procedure Law shall be recognized as inadmissible data as evidence and shall not be referred to the basis of prosecution, nor shall it be used in proving any circumstances specified in Article 113 of this code.

In accordance with Section 3 of Article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the investigator is obliged to carry out criminal prosecution by taking all measures for a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the circumstances of the case.

However, on April 09, 2025, the investigator issued a resolution on the refusal to satisfy the petition letter in which the investigator stated in the inquiry part of his resolution: “the claim of the defense lawyer Sarzhanov Galymzhan Turlybekovich is subject to rejection. Because on March 1, 2025, at 15 o'clock. From 35 minutes to 16 hours. During the 10 minutes of filling out the protocol of interrogation of the suspect E. Atan, S. Aknazarov was involved as a defender of the name E. K.

"I don't know," he said, " but I don't know." The web-based system has no way of re-signing the process protocol after it has been signed electronically during any person's interrogation."I'm sorry," he said.

However, the investigator, without taking into account the circumstances given by the defense, without taking all measures for a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the circumstances of the case, considers the case unilaterally and commits a violation of the law, adhering only to the side of the prosecution of the suspect.

Based on the above, the prosecutor's office in the process of checking our stated motives:

1) video recording tape located in the investigator's office on March 1, 2025, at 15 h. From 35 minutes to 16 hours. During the interrogation of the suspect E. Atan within 10 minutes, the information captured from the videotape is obtained;

2) March 1, 2025, 15 H. From 35 minutes to 16 hours. Within 10 minutes, a detealization of the phone number of the defense attorney S. Aknazarov, who took part in the investigation, is carried out to determine the presence or absence of a communication operator belonging to the police department during the defense during the investigation.

we asked the prosecutor's office to conduct this case in the hope that it would be possible to achieve the truth.

However, in the resolution of the prosecutor of Maktaaral District of April 17, 2025, senior adviser of Justice Dosayev A. T., on the refusal to satisfy the complaint, there is no report on the conduct of the actions proposed by the Defense party, as the prosecutor stated, "the Defense's arguments for the illegal exclusion of the protocol of interrogation of the suspect E. K. 01.03.2025 from the list of evidence are not supported by objective data." "I don't know," he said.

The defender's competence does not include obtaining a phone number for detealization and obtaining an audio and video recording of the APB. In this case, it is a gross violation of the law on the part of the prosecutor's office that, within its competence, the prosecutor's office did not obtain materials exposing the unlawful actions of the investigator, while it was possible to obtain an audio video recording of the APB and detealization of the phone number.

If the prosecutor's office took these materials and presented evidence with the same materials, then there would be no doubt about the defense. The defense attorney is not obliged to prove questionable procedural actions in the case, but the prosecutor is obliged to investigate questionable tregu actions.

Unresolved doubts about the guilt of the suspect, accused, defendant, as specified in the norm of Article 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "presumption of innocence", are interpreted in their favor. It is stated that doubts that arise in the application of criminal and criminal procedure laws should also be resolved in favor of the suspect, accused, defendant.

According to Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a person whose rights and freedoms of a suspect in a criminal case are directly affected by the actions (omissions) and decisions of the prosecutor, investigative and inquiry bodies has the right to apply to the court with a complaint to refuse to accept an application for a criminal offense, violation of the law in committing actions (omissions) and making decisions.

A complaint may be submitted to the District Court at the place of residence of the body conducting the criminal process within fifteen days from the date of familiarization of the person with the disagreeable decision, or within the same period after receiving the notification of the prosecutor about the refusal to satisfy the complaint filed in his name, or from the day fifteen days after the complaint is filed, if the answer to the complaint filed to the prosecutor has not been received.

Based on the above and in accordance with Articles 106 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

We ask the court:

* The decision of the investigator on the refusal to satisfy the defense petition dated April 09, 2025 – to cancel it, recognizing it illegal;

* The decision of the prosecutor of maktaaral district, senior adviser of Justice Dossayev A. T., dated April 17, 2025, on the refusal to satisfy the Defense's complaint – invalidating it as illegal;

* Assign the prosecutor and investigator the obligation to eliminate violations of the rights and legitimate interests of the E. K. name in a criminal case;

* In order to eliminate violations of the rule of law in accordance with the procedure established by law and in order to bring to disciplinary responsibility employees of the prosecutor's office and police responsible for non-performance or improper performance of official duties.

May 26, 2025 No. 5143-25-00-2-5m/10 Turkestan region, investigating judge of the Maktaaral District Court E. B. Slambekov, sitting in the secretariat of M. Amangeldiev, prosecutor of the maktaaral District Prosecutor's office E. Sarzhan, lawyer G. T. Sarzhanov, lawyer of the plaintiff suspect E. K., in the courtroom, in a closed court session, using audio and video recording "I don't know," he said.,

The plaintiff's lawyer Sarzhanov G. T. filed a complaint with the court, in which he asked to cancel the decision of the prosecutor of Maktaaral District of Turkestan region Dossayev A. T. on May 12, 2025 on the refusal to satisfy the complaint of the defense lawyer, to assign the prosecutor the duty to eliminate violations of the rights and legitimate interests of the name of E. K. in a criminal case, to adopt a private decision to the responsible prosecutor for improper performance of official duties.

On the complaint dated 06.05.2025:E. K. Atan during the interrogation from 15:35 to 16: 10 on March 1, 2025, the lawyer was not present, justifying the following::

Conducting a video recording of the interrogation of the suspect E. Atan from 15:35 to 16:10 on March 1, 2025, located in the investigator's office;

On March 1, 2025, from 15:35 to 16:10, the lawyer who participated in the interrogation of the suspect E. Atan, S. Aknazarov, conducted a phone call detailing;

"I'm sorry," he said, " but I'm sorry.";

Obtaining information from the Register of citizens of the maktaaralsky District Police Department for the period from 15:35 to 16:10 on March 1, 2025;

Interrogation of the suspect E. Atan;

Bringing to disciplinary responsibility a responsible police officer for improper performance of official duties;

1 March 2025 from 15:35 to 16:10 the protocol of interrogation of the suspect E. Atan is recognized as illegal and invalid as evidence and excluded from the materials of the criminal case;

He asked to familiarize the Defense party with the materials from which the receipt was made and to respond to the complaint within the time limits provided for in Article 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code of Criminal Procedure).

At the court session, the complainant's lawyer Sarzhanov G. T. confirmed the complaint, referring to the arguments specified in the complaint, and asked to satisfy the complaint.

At the court session, the prosecutor of the maktaaral District Prosecutor's office E. Sarzhan said that in accordance with the requirements of the law, the video recording of the interrogation is stored for only one month, during an oral request from the lawyer, he said that he participated in the interrogation on the same day, the lawyer S. aknazarov found that there is no need to detail the phone number and check the information from the registration book of citizens in the maktaaral District Police Department,, to date, he has been asked to dismiss the reason for the repeated appeal on the same grounds.

Checking the case documents, listening to the complainant, hearing the prosecutor's opinion on the dismissal of the complaint, giving a legal assessment of their totality and finding that the complaint is subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a person whose rights and freedoms are directly affected by the actions /omissions/ and decisions of the prosecutor, investigative and inquiry bodies on a criminal offense, as well as at the beginning of a pre-trial investigation, interruption of the investigation period, termination of a criminal case, forced placement in a medical organization for forensic medical examination, search and /or/ seizure, the court shall have the right to apply to the court with a complaint against the refusal to accept an application for violation of the law in committing other actions /omissions/ and making decisions. When considering a complaint in accordance with the procedure of this article, the court should not pre-resolve issues that may be the subject of judicial consideration when resolving a criminal case on the merits in accordance with this code.

In accordance with Part 5 of this article, when considering a complaint, the court, without evaluating the existing evidence in the case, must establish that all the circumstances indicated by the applicant in his complaint were checked and taken into account by the investigator, investigator, prosecutor. At the same time, the court must check whether there are material, legal and procedural grounds for making a decision on the case, without making a conclusion about the proven or not of guilt, the admissibility or inadmissibility of the collected evidence.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 3 dated 27.06.2012 "on the consideration of complaints filed against the actions /omissions/ and decisions of the prosecutor, investigative and inquiry bodies" individuals (citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan, foreigners, stateless persons), as well as organizations, if the specified acts affect their legitimate interests, as well as their defenders, representatives have the right to apply to the court with a complaint. When checking the right of persons to apply to the court with a complaint in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 106 of the Criminal Code, the courts should be guided by paragraph 4 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 25, 2010 No. 4 "on judicial protection of human and civil rights, freedoms in criminal proceedings".

In accordance with articles 100 and 106 of the CPC in accordance with paragraph 4 of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 25, 2010 No. 4" on judicial protection of human and civil rights, freedoms in criminal proceedings", the head of the inquiry body, the investigator, the head of the Investigative Department, a complaint against procedural decisions and actions (omissions) of the prosecutor may be filed by participants in criminal proceedings or other persons or organizations in the part where the ongoing procedural actions and procedural decisions taken affect their legitimate interests, filed by a defender, legal representative or representative acting in the interests of the applicant.

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 24 of the CPC, the court, prosecutor, investigator, INQUIRER are obliged to take all measures provided for by law for a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the circumstances necessary and sufficient for the correct resolution of the case.

In accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 106 of the CPC, the burden of proving the legality of the appealed actions /omissions/ or decisions rests with the person who committed or adopted them.

On the part of the prosecutor participating in the case, the plaintiff's rights in the criminal case No. 255143031000056 were not violated, the decision of 12.05.2025 was adopted legally, the requirements of the above laws were fulfilled, the circumstances that served as the basis for proof, during the consideration of the complaint did not find its evidence and supporting evidence was not provided.

In accordance with paragraphs 1,2 of Part 8 of Article 106 of the criminal code, the investigating judge, based on the results of consideration of the complaint, makes a corresponding decision on the cancellation of the procedural decision recognized as illegal, on the recognition of the actions /omissions/ actions of the relevant official as illegal.

In this case, the resolution of 12.05.2025 adopted by the prosecutor of Maktaaral District of Turkestan region A. T. Dosayev on a criminal case No. 255143031000056 on a complaint filed on 06.05.2025 is recognized as illegal and is subject to cancellation, the obligation to eliminate the violation committed during the consideration of the complaint is recognized.

Guided by articles 55-56, 106 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the court decided: to satisfy the complaint filed by the complainant in the interests of the lawyer Galymzhan Turlybekovich Sarzhanov, the prosecutor of Maktaaral District of Turkestan region.

The decision of the prosecutor of Maktaaral District of Turkestan region A. T. Dosayev on the appeal of the criminal case No. 255143031000056 dated 06.05.2025, adopted on 05.12.2025, should be recognized as illegal and annulled.

To recognize the obligation to eliminate the committed violation on the complaint filed on 06.05.2025 in a criminal case No. 255143031000056.

Attention!

Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.

For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases