Rehabilitation of victims of mass political repression

Paragraph 12 of Regulation No. 13 clarifies that the courts have the right to establish facts of legal significance, such as the establishment of the fact of residence at a certain time in a certain area, the presence of a person in a special settlement, as a result of the use of repression.

By virtue of article 8 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Rehabilitation of Victims of Mass Political Repression", applications for rehabilitation are submitted by the repressed themselves, as well as by any persons or interested public associations at the location of the body or official who made the decision to apply repression in court – to the prosecutor's office, administratively or otherwise – to the internal affairs bodies. foreign affairs or national security.

In accordance with article 2 of the above-mentioned Law, victims of political repression are recognized as persons who permanently resided before the repression was applied to them in the territory that now forms the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, in the following cases:: a) the use of repression by Soviet courts and other bodies outside the former USSR; b) the conviction by military tribunals of the active army during World War II (civilians and military personnel); c) the use of repression after conscription for military service outside Kazakhstan; d) the use of repression by decisions of the central allied bodies: the Supreme Court of the USSR and its judicial boards, the board of the OGPU of the USSR, the special meeting of the NKVD-MGB-Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR, the Commission of the Prosecutor's Office of the USSR and the NKVD of the USSR on investigative cases and other bodies; e) the use of repression for participation in the events of December 17-18, 1986 in Kazakhstan, with the exception of persons convicted of committing premeditated murders and assaults on the life of a police officer, the people's

the vigilante in these events, in respect of which the current procedure for reviewing criminal cases remains in place.

Thus, by the decision of the Aktobe city Court No. 3 dated April 23, 2025, D.O. was recognized as a victim of political repression during the uprising that took place in December 1986 in Almaty.

By the decision of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases dated July 1, 2025, the decision of the Aktobe City Court No. 3 was canceled with the issuance of a new decision to dismiss the application.

In substantiation of its conclusions, the judicial board pointed out that, on the basis of the applicant's appeal by the Almaty City Prosecutor, on 20 February 2017, certificate No. 2-17170-17-05301 had already been issued on D.O.'s acquittal, that is, the fact that the applicant had been classified as a victim of political repression had been established by the prosecutor's office.

Based on this certificate, D.O., as a victim of political repression, was paid a one-time monetary compensation on July 28, 2021, and a special state allowance has been paid to victims of political repression since December 13, 2024.

The above ruled out the validity of the applicant's repeated appeal to the court with this requirement, since at the time of the appeal to the court his status as a victim of political repression had already been established.

In this regard, the judicial board made a new decision to dismiss the application.

This judicial practice seems to be correct. However, there are other examples. A number of cases in this category have been considered in the courts of Astana city. The applications of citizens to establish the fact that they were recognized as victims of political repression for their participation in the events of December 17-18, 1986 in Kazakhstan were satisfied in the absence of sufficient evidence.

Thus, by the decision of the inter-district Court for Civil Cases of Astana city dated November 18, 2024, B.S.'s application for recognition as a victim of political repression for participation in the events of December 17-18, 1986 in Kazakhstan was satisfied.

The statement is motivated by the fact that on December 17, 1986, the applicant (nee B.B.), as part of the democratically minded students of the Taldy-Kurgan Law College, went to a demonstration in protest of the dictate of the Center, was detained by law enforcement officers and taken to the Taldy-Kurgan city Police Department, where she stayed for two days. while the inspection was underway and preventive measures were carried out with it. After that, a message was sent to her place of study at the Taldy-Kurgan Law College about her participation in the demonstration. Due to the expiration of the retention period for documents, information on the fact of her detention and the use of illegal repression against her for participating in the events

It is not possible to document December 17-18, 1986.

The court's decision was protested by the prosecutor.

By the decision of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Astana City Court dated August 26, 2025, the decision of the court of first instance was overturned, the prosecutor's protest was satisfied.

The appellate instance established that the applicant, born on June 27, 1967, studied full-time at the Taldy-Kurgan Law College from 1985 to 1987. On December 17, 1986, having shown a civic position, she became a participant in the events of December 17-18, 1986 in the city of Taldykorgan. She does not have the status of a victim of mass political repression.

According to the information of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 9, 2024, the college was liquidated on the basis of the resolution of the Akimat of the Almaty region dated May 12, 2020 No. 199, and the college is also not the legal successor of the Taldykorgan Law College. There are no archival documents of the college in the state archive.

According to the information in the State Institution "Department of the Committee on Legal Statistics and Special Accounts of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the Zhetisu region" dated June 27, 2024, there is no information on bringing the applicant to criminal responsibility.

According to the information of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 2, 2024, there is no archive regarding the December 1986 events.

From the information from the archive of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 5, 2024, it follows that information about the detention and participation in the December 1986 events of B.B. was not found in the documents of the primary party organizations of the Central Committee of the People's Commissariat of Youth of Kazakhstan of the regional Committee of the Alma Ata region.

In granting the application, the court mistakenly assumed that the evidence presented by the applicant indicated that B.S. was a victim of political repression.

According to the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Rehabilitation of Victims of Mass Political Repression", rehabilitation means recognizing a person in a judicial or other legally prescribed manner as a victim of political repression or a victim of political repression, restoring his violated rights, and compensating for moral or material damage.

In accordance with paragraph e) of article 2 of the Law, victims of political repression are also recognized as persons in cases of reprisals for participation in the events of December 17-18, 1986 in Kazakhstan, with the exception of persons convicted of premeditated murder and assault on the life of a police officer, a national vigilante in these events, in respect of which the current review procedure remains criminal cases.

It has been established that during the December 1986 events, the applicant was subjected to coercive measures in the form of detention, forced treatment in psychiatric institutions, expulsion from the country and deprivation of citizenship, removal from places of residence or areas of residence (exile and expulsion), transfer to special settlements, forced labor with restriction of liberty, imprisonment or restriction of rights and freedoms associated with false accusation of committing a crime, or with persecution as socially dangerous persons based on political beliefs, class, social, national, religious and other affiliation were not applied, which is not disputed by the applicant.

Taking the applicant to the police and preventive interviews conducted by police officers are not grounds for establishing the fact that the applicant was recognized as a victim of mass political repression and rehabilitation.

The applicant has not provided any evidence that he was persecuted and persecuted as a socially dangerous person on the grounds of political beliefs, class, social, national, religious or other affiliation, or was subjected to administrative or criminal liability, or was a victim of the repression of the December events.

By studying the materials of civil cases, it was established that the inter-district Court for Civil Cases of Astana city made similar mistakes this year when considering civil cases of the analyzed category, which led to the issuance of illegal decisions that were canceled at the protest of the prosecutor.

By the decision of the Interdistrict Court for Civil Cases of Astana from

On July 2, 2025, U.A.'s application for recognition as a victim of political repression for his participation in the events of December 17-18, 1986 in Kazakhstan was granted.

So, U.A. motivated the statement by the fact that on December 17, 1986, as part of the students of the college, democratically minded students went to a demonstration in protest of the dictates of the Center. She was detained by employees of the internal affairs bodies, as part of the students, and taken to the UP of the Leninsky District Department of Internal Affairs of the Akmola region, where she stayed for two days. An information message about her participation in the demonstration was sent to the Tselinograd Pedagogical College at her place of study. After conducting preventive interviews, the school administration issued an order to relieve the headman of his duties. Due to the expiration of the document retention period, it was not possible to document the information about her detention and the use of illegal repression against her for her participation in the events of December 17-18, 1986.

By the decision of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Astana City Court dated September 2, 2025, the decision of the court of first instance was canceled, the prosecutor's protest was satisfied.

The Court of appeal, overturning the court's decision, concluded that the applicant had not provided any evidence that he was a victim of political repression.

It has been established that during the December 1986 events, the applicant was subjected to coercive measures in the form of detention, forced treatment in psychiatric institutions, expulsion from the country and deprivation of citizenship, removal from places of residence or areas of residence (exile and expulsion), transfer to special settlements, forced labor with restriction of liberty, imprisonment or restriction of rights and freedoms associated with false accusation of committing a crime, or with persecution as socially dangerous persons based on political beliefs, class, social, national, religious and other affiliation were not applied, which is not disputed by the applicant.

That is, the judicial acts of the appellate instance in the above cases essentially contain similar formulations.

In accordance with Article 3 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On the rehabilitation of victims of mass Political repression", in the absence (due to their destruction) of documents confirming the use of political repression in the form of expulsion from the country, removal from their places of residence or areas of residence (exile or expulsion), referral to a special settlement, the basis for recognizing the fact The purpose of using repression is to establish the actual residence of persons on the territory of Kazakhstan as a result of repressive actions.

D.G. applied to the court to establish the fact that D.G. and E.A.'s parents were in a special settlement in the period from 1937 to 1957 and to recognize them as victims of mass political repression, arguing that her parents had been forcibly relocated from Vladivostok to Kazakhstan, Kostanay region without the right to leave the country.

By virtue of subparagraph 16) of paragraph 1 of Article 190 of the Social Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, victims of political repression, victims of political repression, persons with disabilities or pensioners are entitled to receive special state benefits.

From the certificate provided to the court by the Prosecutor's office of the Kostanay region dated March 11, 2024, it follows that the Department of Legal Statistics and Special Accounts for the Kostanay region does not have archival information about the exile, expulsion, and registration of a special settlement in relation to D.G. and E.A.

At the same time, the decision of the Kostanay City Court of February 19, 2013 in respect of the applicant D.G. established the fact that she had been in a special settlement in the Kostanay region of the Kazakh SSR from the moment of her birth in 1951 to 1957, D.G. was recognized as a victim of political repression against her parents, D.G. and E.A.

The decision of the Kostanay City Court of June 24, 2025 recognized the fact that D.G. and E.A. were in a special settlement in the period from 1937 to 1957 without the right to leave Kazakhstan after forced resettlement. D.G. and E.A. were recognized as victims of mass political repression.

Thus, the court established the legal fact of the applicant's appeal against other persons (parents), whereas the decision of February 19, 2013 had already been taken against her.

The applicant, K.G., filed a statement with the court, arguing that her father, K.C., was an ethnic Korean who had been repressed by the USSR authorities on the basis of nationality during the mass expulsions of the Korean population from the USSR Far East in 1937. According to reports, K.Ch. was sent to a special settlement in the Kazakh SSR, where he was in conditions of restriction of freedom, and was also subjected to forced labor. During the stay at the special settlement with K.Ch. and his wife K.T., on June 5, 1948, the applicant's daughter K.G. was born, respectively, she is the child of a victim of political repression who was with her parents in a special settlement. Despite the lack of archival information about K.K.'s criminal prosecution or incarceration (which is explained by the loss or unavailability of archival materials from those years), the deportation of the Korean population to Kazakhstan itself was an act of political violence, about which there are many historical sources recognized both in Kazakhstan and internationally. Therefore, she asked to recognize her father, K.C., as a victim of political repression, and her as a victim of political repression.

By a court decision of July 30, 2025, K.G.'s application was refused.

By the decision of the judicial board for Civil cases of the Almaty City Court, the court's decision remained unchanged.

The court correctly notes that it is necessary to find out from the applicant whether there is a legal interest in establishing the fact, to require written evidence from the applicant indicating the impossibility of obtaining or restoring a proper document certifying this fact.

The procedure for considering cases of establishing facts of legal significance is regulated by Chapter 32 of the CPC (Articles 305-309).

An application for establishing a fact of legal significance is filed with the court at the applicant's place of residence, with the exception of the fact that there are documents confirming the possession, use and (or) disposal of immovable property, which is filed with the court at the location of the immovable property.

The application must indicate for what purpose the applicant needs to establish this fact, and evidence must be provided confirming the applicant's inability to obtain proper documents or the impossibility of restoring lost documents.

In accordance with Article 305 of the CPC, the court establishes the facts on which the emergence, modification or termination of personal or property rights of citizens or legal entities depends.

The Court considers cases on establishing facts: 1) kinship relations of persons; 2) finding a dependent person; 3) registration of birth, adoption, marriage, divorce and death; 4) recognition of paternity; 5) ownership of title documents (with the exception of military documents, passports, identity cards and certificates issued by civil registration authorities) to a person, whose first name, patronymic or surname indicated in the document does not match the first name, patronymic or surname of this person on the passport or identity card, or birth certificate; 6) the availability of documents confirming the ownership, use and (or) disposal of immovable property, if the applicant had a title document on the ownership of the property, but it is lost, and the specified fact cannot be established out of court; 7) an accident, if it cannot be confirmed in another manner.;  8) death of a person at a certain time under certain circumstances

9) acceptance of the inheritance and the place of opening of the inheritance, if the person performing the notarial acts is unable to issue a certificate of inheritance rights to the applicant due to the absence or insufficiency of the relevant documents necessary to confirm the fact of taking possession of the inheritance property.

Within the meaning of Part 3 of Article 305 of the CPC, other facts may be established on which the emergence, modification or termination of personal or property rights depends, unless otherwise provided for by legislation.

At the same time, the court does not resolve the dispute about the law, it only establishes the fact, which is the basis for further legal action. The established facts may affect the legal status of a person, the accrual of pensions, benefits, inheritance, etc. If such facts are established, if the necessary legal conditions are in place, the court may make a decision that will become the basis for subsequent legal actions or for the emergence of new legal relations.

Based on the above, it can be concluded that the establishment of facts of legal importance is an important procedure in the legal system, and the courts can accept applications and consider them in a separate proceeding, subject to certain criteria.

These include:

1) facts of legal significance affecting the rights and obligations of persons. This means that their establishment should lead to the emergence, modification or termination of the rights of individuals or legal entities. For example, establishing the fact of paternity may affect a child's right to inheritance or to receive social benefits.;

2) the court only establishes a fact (for example, the fact of birth or mutilation), but does not resolve the issue of the rights or obligations of the parties arising from this fact.;

3) if the applicant is unable to obtain the necessary documents to confirm the fact (for example, the loss of a birth certificate, death of a relative, or other causes) in a different manner, the court may consider the case to establish this fact; if there is no special legislative mechanism for establishing the fact, the court has the right to establish the fact in a separate proceeding. This is important because the person must exhaust all other possibilities of documenting the fact.

Features of proof

The following facts must be proven in this category of cases:

- evidence confirming the existence of this legal fact (documents, letters, witness statements, etc.);

- certificates from various bodies (RAGS bodies, archives, etc.) about the inability to obtain or restore proper documents certifying a legal fact;

- evidence confirming the legal purpose of establishing this fact.

State duty

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 609 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

"On Taxes and other mandatory Payments to the Budget (Tax Code)" state duty rates are determined in the amount of a multiple of the monthly calculation index established by the law on the Republican Budget and effective on the date of payment of the state duty (hereinafter referred to as the MCI), or as a percentage of the amount of the claim, unless otherwise provided by Article 610 of this Code.

According to subparagraph 8) of paragraph 1 of Article 610 of the Tax Code, state duty is levied on applications for special claims, applications (complaints) in cases of special proceedings, and administrative claims under the Administrative Procedural Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, with the exception of those specified in subparagraphs 2), 3), 4) and 13) of this paragraph. in the amount of 0.5 MCI.

The same amount of the state duty rate is established by the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 18, 2025.

A study of the cases showed that when submitting applications to the court, applicants correctly pay the state fee at the rate of 50 percent of the amount of the MCI established by the law on the republican budget and effective on the date of payment of the state fee.

At the same time, in the civil case, according to B.N.'s application for establishing the existence of a document confirming the ownership, use and disposal of immovable property, a payment document confirming the payment of a state fee in the amount of 12,900 tenge was attached to the application, whereas it was necessary to pay 0.5 MCI, that is, 1,846 tenge. When considering the above-mentioned case on the merits, the court did not refund the overpaid state fee (Arshalynsky District Court of Akmola region).

Jurisdiction

According to Article 307 of the CPC, an application for establishing a fact of legal significance is filed with the court at the applicant's place of residence, with the exception of the fact that there are documents confirming the possession, use and (or) disposal of immovable property, which is filed with the court at the location of the immovable property.

In some cases, local courts have noted that at the stage of making statements on cases of establishing a fact of legal significance, judges do not use the integrated information system for information exchange of law enforcement, special state and other bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan (SIO PSO) in their work.

Thus, by Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 28, 2023

No. 424 "On some issues of the administrative and territorial structure of the Republic of Kazakhstan" it was decided to move the administrative center of the Katon-Karagai district of the East Kazakhstan region from the village of Ulken Naryn to the village of Katon-Karagai of the Katon-Karagai district of the East Kazakhstan region. To form the Ulken Naryn district with the administrative center in the village of Ulken Naryn as part of the East Kazakhstan region by separating from the Katon-Karagai district.

In the examples below, when the applicants, whose place of residence was previously located in the territory of the Katon-Karagai district according to the above Decree, moved to the newly formed Ulken Naryn district, they applied to the Katon-Karagai District Court.

So, M.Z. applied to the court with an application for establishing the fact of family relations.

This statement was accepted by the ruling of the judge of the Katon-Karagai District Court on March 6, 2025, and a civil case was initiated, with a preliminary court hearing scheduled for March 20, 2025.

By the ruling of the judge of the Katon-Karagai District Court dated March 31, 2025, the civil case on M.Z.'s application for establishing the fact of kinship relations was transferred for consideration on the merits to the Ulken Naryn District court under jurisdiction (subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 34 of the CPC).

Thus, the application has been in court proceedings for more than one month since its receipt, whereas it can be seen from the application that the applicant indicated his place of residence: Ulken Naryn district, Kokbastau village, therefore, the judge should have returned this application to the judge at the stage of accepting the application on the grounds of subparagraph 2) of part 1 of Article 152 of the CPC.

It should also be noted that the ruling of March 31, 2025 was issued by a judge without holding a court session, not by the composition of the court and not in a conference room, whereas based on the meaning of subparagraph 3) of part 2 of Article 34 of the CPC, the issue of transferring the case to another court is resolved by the court.

In addition, the said ruling dated March 31, 2025 is subject to immediate enforcement, despite the requirements of paragraph 7 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 20, 2003 No. 2 "On the application by courts of certain norms of civil procedure legislation." According to this paragraph, in the cases provided for in the sub-paragraphs 1), 3), 4), 5), 6) According to the second part of Article 34 of the CPC, the transfer of a case from the proceedings of one court to the proceedings of another court is carried out on the basis of a court ruling that has entered into legal force.

Refusals to accept applications, refunds

G.V. applied to establish the fact of termination of marital relations since 2013 between V.K. and L.K.

It follows from the contents of the application and the attached documents that G.V. is the heir of the second stage after the death of V.K. and L.K. in connection with which, the establishment of the fact is necessary for him to accept the inheritance after the death of L.K. (L.G.).

By the ruling of the Mamlyutsky District Court of the North Kazakhstan region dated September 25, 2024, G.V. refused to accept the application.

In refusing to accept the application, the court of first instance proceeded from paragraph 12 of Regulatory Decree No. 13, stating that the fact of marital relations, as well as their termination, can be established by the court only to persons who were in such a relationship before 1944, that is, before the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated November 10, 1944.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the court's conclusions.

The applicant A.P. requested to establish the fact of his employment in various organizations in the period from 1979 to 2002 for pension purposes.

By the ruling of the Semeysky City Court of March 24, 2023, the application was returned on the basis of subparagraph 1) of part 1 of Article 152 of the CPC – non-compliance with the pre-trial procedure. The court clarified that the refund does not prevent a second appeal after the violations have been eliminated.

In accordance with paragraph 3 of regulatory Decree No. 13 and paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the Law "On Pension Provision", a citizen must initially apply to the authorized body - the territorial body of the Committee on Labor, Social Protection and Migration - with a request for confirmation of work experience.

The applicant did not provide evidence of such treatment, and therefore, the possibility of settling the issue out of court has not been exhausted.

The courts correctly note the typical mistake of applicants in this category – premature appeal to the court without confirmation of an attempt to resolve the issue with the authorized body. To prevent such returns, it is necessary to document the application to the social protection authorities (NAO GC Government for Citizens) and receive an official refusal or response.

Regulatory legal framework

The normative legal acts regulating these legal relations and subject to application in the consideration of cases in this category are:

-The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

- The Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code),

- The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – CPC),

- The Administrative Procedural Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the APPC),

-The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and other Mandatory Payments to the Budget (Tax Code)",

-Social Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

-The Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

-The Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Marriage (Matrimony) and Family" (hereinafter – KBS),

-The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Notaries",

-The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Veterans",

-The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On rehabilitation of victims of mass political repression",

-The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On State social benefits for disability and age-related loss of Breadwinner in the Republic of Kazakhstan",

-Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 19, 2003 No. 5 "On judicial decision",

-Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 28, 2002 No. 13 "On judicial practice in cases of establishing facts of legal significance" (Regulatory Resolution

№13),

-Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 13, 2001 No. 21 "On the preparation of civil cases for trial"

-Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 20, 2003 No. 2 "On the application by courts of certain norms of civil procedure legislation", etc.

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