Tormenting a person through hired means
1. General Characteristics of the Elements of the Criminal Offense
Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes increased criminal liability for torture committed for hire.
The current version of Article 110 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:
Part 1. Causing physical or mental suffering through violent acts committed with particular cruelty, humiliation, or for the purpose of inflicting torment on the victim, provided that the act does not result in grievous bodily harm or bodily harm of medium severity.
Part 2. The same act committed, inter alia, for hire —
shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of four to seven years.
The current text of the provision is available at ZakonPravo.kz — Article 110 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, “Torture” and in the official Adilet Legal Information System. (Adilet)
Thus, qualification under subparagraph 5) of Part 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code is possible only where all the mandatory elements of the basic offense of torture have been proven and, in addition, the qualifying element of “for hire” has been established.
This is of fundamental importance.
The following circumstances, taken alone:
- receipt of money;
- the existence of a prior agreement;
- a promise of remuneration;
- a dispute over money;
- the use of violence in the interests of another person;
- the existence of a pecuniary motive
do not automatically establish the elements of torture for hire specifically.
It is necessary to establish a causal and substantive connection between the violence and the agreement to commit it in exchange for remuneration.
2. The Place of Article 110 in the System of Offenses Against the Person
Article 110 of the Criminal Code forms part of the system of criminal-law protection of human life and health.
The principal direct legal interest protected is a person's physical and mental health, as well as the physical and psychological integrity of the individual.
Additional protected interests include:
- human dignity;
- physical integrity;
- psychological integrity;
- personal freedom from systematic or tormenting violence.
The constitutional basis for such protection is primarily established in Article 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan:
- Human dignity shall be inviolable.
- No one shall be subjected to torture, violence, or other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment.
Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Article 17 on ZakonPravo.kz
Accordingly, Article 110 of the Criminal Code must not be interpreted in isolation but within the following legal framework:
Constitution → international treaties → Criminal Code → Criminal Procedure Code → Regulatory Resolutions of the Supreme Court → other regulatory legal acts.
3. The Current Version of Article 110: An Important Amendment
For a practicing lawyer, it is particularly important to take into account the historical development of this provision.
Previously, Part 2 of Article 110 contained subparagraph 4), which referred to the commission of torture using torture methods.
This subparagraph was removed by Law No. 212-VII of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 17, 2023.
At the same time, the current version retains the following provisions:
- subparagraph 1) — commission against a minor, a helpless person, or a dependent person;
- subparagraph 2) — commission against two or more victims;
- subparagraph 3) — commission against a pregnant woman;
- subparagraph 5) — for hire;
- subparagraph 6) — commission on the grounds of social, national, racial, or religious hatred or enmity.
Current version of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Therefore, when determining the legal classification under the current law, it is impermissible to mechanically rely on older judicial documents referring to subparagraph 4) of Part 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code.
This is particularly important when using older Supreme Court judicial practice.
4. Classification of the Crime
Part 1 of Article 11 of the Criminal Code establishes the categories of criminal offenses depending on their nature and degree of public danger.
For intentional crimes, the categories are determined by the maximum term of imprisonment:
- imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years — a lower category of criminal offense;
- imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years — a crime of medium severity;
- imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve years — a serious crime;
- imprisonment for a term exceeding twelve years or life imprisonment — an especially serious crime.
(Adilet)
Accordingly:
Part 1 of Article 110
The maximum penalty is imprisonment for up to three years.
Since this is an intentional crime and the maximum term of imprisonment exceeds two years but does not exceed five years, it falls into the category of crimes of medium severity.
Subparagraph 5) of Part 2 of Article 110
The maximum penalty is imprisonment for up to seven years.
Accordingly, this constitutes a serious crime.
This has fundamental procedural significance for:
- preventive measures;
- limitation periods;
- the possibility of terminating criminal proceedings;
- reconciliation;
- sentencing;
- the application of certain procedural mechanisms.
5. The Objective Element of Torture
The objective element consists of causing the victim:
- physical suffering;
- mental suffering;
through violent acts committed:
- with particular cruelty;
- with humiliation;
- for the purpose of inflicting torment on the victim.
At the same time, the basic offense under Article 110 is specifically limited by the resulting consequences: the act must not result in grievous bodily harm or bodily harm of medium severity.
This does not mean that the victim must have no bodily injuries whatsoever.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court's regulatory resolution expressly states that torture may manifest itself, for example, in:
- beatings;
- causing minor bodily harm;
- needle pricks;
- biting;
- pulling out hair;
- setting a dog on the victim;
- depriving the victim of food;
- depriving the victim of water;
- depriving the victim of warmth;
- other violent acts.
(Adilet)
Therefore, the presence of bruises, abrasions, contusions, or minor bodily harm does not, in itself, exclude the application of Article 110 of the Criminal Code.
However, if a medical examination establishes bodily harm of medium severity or grievous bodily harm, the correctness of the legal classification must be reviewed.
6. Mandatory Elements of the Offense of Torture
Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 28, 2009, “On the Application of the Norms of Criminal and Criminal Procedure Legislation Concerning the Observance of Personal Liberty and Inviolability of Human Dignity, and Combating Torture, Violence, and Other Cruel or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” specifically clarifies the elements of the offense of torture.
According to paragraph 31-2 of this regulatory resolution, the mandatory elements are:
- intentional violent acts;
- particular cruelty and/or humiliation;
- the infliction of physical and mental suffering;
- the purpose of inflicting torment on the victim.
It is precisely the combination of these elements that makes it possible to distinguish torture from the mere infliction of physical pain.
7. What Does “For Hire” Mean?
The concept of “for hire” in the context of Article 110 of the Criminal Code should not be confused with employment relationships.
In the criminal-law sense, it refers to a situation in which a person commits violent acts pursuant to an agreement with another person in exchange for property or other remuneration.
A typical model is:
Principal → agreement → perpetrator → violence → remuneration.
For example:
A approaches B and proposes:
“Find C and inflict torment on him so that he stops interfering in my affairs. You will receive KZT 100,000 for this.”
B accepts the offer, locates C, and commits acts constituting torture.
If all the elements are proven, B's actions may be classified under subparagraph 5) of Part 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code.
8. Is Actual Payment of Money Mandatory?
No.
For the purposes of establishing the qualifying element of “for hire,” it is fundamentally important to prove the agreement on remuneration and that the actions were conditional upon that agreement.
Accordingly, the following situations are possible:
Scenario 1 — Money Has Been Paid
A promised to pay B KZT 200,000.
B committed the act of torture.
Afterwards, A transferred the money.
This is a straightforward example.
Scenario 2 — Money Was Promised but Not Paid
A promised KZT 200,000.
B carried out the assignment.
A refused to pay.
The mere fact that the money was not paid does not necessarily exclude classification under the qualifying element “for hire.”
Scenario 3 — Part of the Remuneration Was Paid
For example:
- KZT 50,000 as an advance;
- the remainder after completion of the assignment.
The element of hire may still be established.
Scenario 4 — Non-Monetary Remuneration Was Promised
For example:
- a car;
- property;
- repayment of a debt;
- provision of a service;
- another economic benefit.
The issue must be resolved based on the actual substance of the agreement.
9. Is a Written Agreement Mandatory?
No.
An agreement to commit a crime may take any of the following forms:
- Oral;
- Written;
- Through a messaging application;
- Through a telephone conversation;
- Through audio messages;
- Through video messages;
- Through an intermediary;
- Through an online platform;
- Through an anonymous account.
Therefore, the absence of a written agreement does not prevent the proper legal classification of the act.
On the contrary, in modern cases, the fact that a person was hired to commit the act is often established through digital evidence.
10. Digital Evidence in Cases of Torture for Hire
The following may be of particular evidentiary significance:
- Telegram;
- WhatsApp;
- Signal;
- Instagram;
- TikTok;
- Email correspondence;
- Banking applications;
- Money transfers;
- Electronic wallets;
- Call logs;
- Data provided by telecommunications operators;
- Geolocation data;
- Network connection records;
- IP addresses;
- Mobile phone data;
- Photographs;
- Video recordings;
- Audio recordings.
However, the existence of correspondence does not, in itself, establish that the elements of a criminal offence have been proven.
It is necessary to establish:
- Who owns the account;
- Who actually used the device;
- Who owns the telephone number;
- Whether the correspondence is authentic;
- Whether the correspondence has been edited or manipulated;
- The context of the correspondence;
- The connection between the correspondence and the specific incident;
- The relationship between the person who commissioned the act and the person who carried it out;
- Whether remuneration was provided;
- Whether the remuneration was specifically paid for the acts of torture.
11. The Subject of the Offence
As a general rule, the subject of criminal liability is a sane individual who has attained the age of 16.
This is particularly important because Article 110 is not included in the list of offences for which criminal liability begins at the age of 14.
Accordingly, the subject of the offence of torture under Article 110 is a person who has attained the age of 16.
The following specific issues may arise:
- Criminal responsibility and mental capacity;
- Age;
- Participation in the commission of the offence;
- Mental state;
- Voluntariness of participation;
- The respective roles of the person who commissioned the act and the perpetrator.
12. The Subjective Element of the Offence
Torture is an intentional criminal offence.
For the purposes of legal classification, it must be established that the person:
- Understood the nature of their actions;
- Understood that they were using force;
- Was aware that their actions would cause suffering;
- Desired to inflict such suffering;
- Acted with the purpose of torturing the victim.
Where the offence is classified under subparagraph 5) of Part 2, the circumstances establishing that the act was committed for hire must also be proven.
13. Intention and Purpose: A Fundamental Distinction
In cases of this category, it is necessary to distinguish between the following concepts.
Motive
The reason why a person commits a crime.
Examples include:
- Revenge;
- Jealousy;
- Greed;
- Hatred;
- The intention to force a person to leave;
- The intention to punish;
- Personal animosity.
Purpose
The result that a person seeks to achieve.
For the purposes of Article 110, the purpose of torturing the victim is a mandatory element.
The qualifying element of “for hire”
This concerns the method or circumstances of committing the offence, namely, that the acts are carried out pursuant to a hiring arrangement in exchange for remuneration.
For example:
A hires B to inflict suffering on C.
For B, the “for hire” element constitutes a direct qualifying circumstance of the offence.
As regards A, the form of participation in the crime must be examined separately.
14. Criminal Liability of the Person Who Commissioned the Act
The fact that the person who commissioned the act did not personally inflict physical violence does not mean that they are exempt from criminal liability.
Depending on the circumstances established, the person may be recognised as:
- An organiser;
- An instigator;
- An aider or abettor;
- A co-perpetrator of the offence.
Accordingly, the case may involve the following structure:
Person who commissioned the act + perpetrator + intermediary.
The role of each individual must be determined separately.
A formal conclusion that “the person commissioned the act and is therefore automatically guilty” is impermissible.
It is necessary to prove specific actions connected with the particular criminal offence, the requisite intent, and the causal relationship.
15. Complicity in a Crime
Where several persons are involved, the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan governing complicity in a crime must be applied.
The following issues are of particular importance:
- The allocation of roles;
- The existence of common criminal intent;
- The point at which the intent arose;
- Each participant's awareness;
- The scope of the agreement;
- Whether the perpetrator exceeded the scope of the agreement.
For example, if the person who commissioned the act agreed only to several blows being inflicted, but the perpetrator independently decided to cause significantly more serious harm to the victim, the limits of each person's criminal liability must be determined.
The court must establish not merely the fact that the individuals knew each other or had a relationship, but also the substance of their common criminal intent.
16. Distinguishing Torture for Hire from Intentional Infliction of Bodily Injury
This distinction is particularly important in practice.
If a person strikes a victim once and causes bodily injury of moderate severity, this does not automatically constitute an offence under Article 110.
The relevant provision concerning the infliction of bodily injury must be considered.
Article 110 specifically requires conduct that is characterised by the infliction of physical or psychological suffering amounting to torture.
Accordingly, a defence lawyer must analyse:
- The number of acts;
- Their duration;
- Their intensity;
- The method of inflicting suffering;
- The nature of the bodily injuries;
- The victim's emotional state;
- The duration of the suffering;
- Whether the acts were repeated;
- The circumstances in which the victim was restrained;
- Deprivation of water, food or warmth;
- The humiliating and degrading nature of the conduct.
17. Distinguishing the Offence from Article 108-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Article 108-1 provides for criminal liability for the intentional infliction of minor bodily injury.
Where the elements of conduct characterised by torture or humiliation, as well as the purpose of torture, are absent, and only an isolated incident of minor bodily injury has been established, the applicability of the relevant provision concerning minor bodily injury must be considered.
However, not every incident of physical assault may automatically be classified as torture.
18. Distinguishing the Offence from Article 109-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Article 109-1 provides for criminal liability for battery.
The distinguishing feature of Article 110 is the infliction of physical or psychological suffering through acts committed with particular cruelty or humiliation and for the purpose of torture.
Therefore, the legal classification must be based not only on the number of blows but also on the nature of the intent and the manner in which the conduct was carried out.
19. Distinguishing the Offence from Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Where grievous bodily harm has been inflicted, it is necessary to determine whether the elements of the offence under Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan are present.
The following principle is particularly important:
Article 110 must not be applied in place of the provision governing the infliction of grievous bodily harm solely because the victim subjectively describes the conduct as torture.
The legally significant circumstance is the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, which must be assessed together with the other evidence in the case.
20. Distinguishing the Offence from Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Similarly, torture must be distinguished from the intentional infliction of bodily injury of moderate severity.
Part 1 of Article 110 expressly excludes cases in which torture results in bodily injury of moderate severity or grievous bodily harm.
Therefore, determining the degree of bodily injury is one of the key factual issues in the case.
21. Distinguishing Torture from Abuse — Article 146 of the Criminal Code
This is one of the most important issues.
Abuse and torture must not be treated as identical concepts.
The Supreme Court has specifically clarified the need to distinguish Article 146 of the Criminal Code from the relevant provision of Article 110.
Torture involves specific purposes prescribed by law, such as:
- obtaining information;
- obtaining a confession;
- punishment;
- intimidation;
- coercion;
- a discriminatory motive.
This is subject to the presence of a special offender or other conditions prescribed by law.
The Supreme Court indicates that where all the elements of the offence of torture are present, the act is classified under Article 146 of the Criminal Code, and no additional classification as abuse is required.
22. International Standards
The Republic of Kazakhstan acceded to the UN Convention against Torture pursuant to Law No. 247 of 29 June 1998.
Law on Kazakhstan’s Accession to the Convention against Torture
The Convention contains fundamental provisions prohibiting:
- torture;
- cruel treatment;
- inhuman treatment;
- degrading treatment.
The following articles are of particular importance:
- Article 1 — definition of torture;
- Article 2 — obligation to prevent torture;
- Article 4 — criminal liability;
- Article 10 — training of personnel;
- Article 11 — systematic monitoring;
- Article 12 — obligation to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation;
- Article 13 — right to lodge a complaint;
- Article 14 — compensation;
- Article 16 — other forms of cruel treatment.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan expressly links the Convention to the interpretation of national legal provisions. (Zakon i Pravo)
23. Optional Protocol
Kazakhstan has also ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture — Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 48-IV
The Protocol provides for a preventive mechanism involving visits to places where persons deprived of their liberty are held.
In relation to an ordinary offence against a private individual under Article 110, it does not directly constitute a procedural ground for initiating criminal proceedings. However, it forms part of the broader international legal framework for protection against cruel treatment.
24. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Article 7 of the ICCPR and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are specifically mentioned in materials concerning Kazakhstan’s accession to the Convention against Torture. (Zakon i Pravo)
Accordingly, Article 110 of the national Criminal Code must be applied taking into account the general international standard for the protection of human dignity.
25. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
A case under Article 110 of the Criminal Code is heard in accordance with criminal procedure.
Pursuant to Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, district courts and courts equated to them are courts of first instance and hear all criminal cases, except those assigned by law to the jurisdiction of specialised courts.
Consequently, an ordinary criminal case under subparagraph 5) of part 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code, where no special grounds for jurisdiction apply, is heard by a district court or a court equivalent to it.
26. Territorial Jurisdiction
The basic principle is that the case is heard by the court at the place where the criminal offence was committed, subject to the CPC rules on territorial jurisdiction.
If the offence began in one place and was completed in another, the special rules of the CPC must be applied.
Particular difficulties arise in cases involving:
- an order placed via the internet;
- the ordering party being located in one city;
- the perpetrator being located in another;
- the victim being located in a third;
- payment of remuneration through an electronic system;
- the commission of violence in a fourth location.
In such cases, the place where the offence was committed is determined not solely by the location of the ordering party.
27. Allocation of Jurisdiction
The term “allocation of jurisdiction” has a conditional meaning in the context of Article 110.
This is a criminal law dispute, not a:
- civil dispute;
- administrative dispute;
- labour dispute.
The principal proceedings are conducted in accordance with the CPC.
A civil claim for compensation for damage may be considered within the criminal proceedings.
Article 166 of the CPC expressly provides for the consideration of civil claims for compensation for:
- property damage;
- non-pecuniary damage;
- medical expenses;
- funeral expenses;
- insurance payments;
- benefits;
- expenses for legal representation;
- other expenses provided for by law.
28. State Duty
The victim does not pay a state duty as for a civil claim in connection with the initiation and consideration of criminal proceedings under Article 110.
If the victim brings a civil claim within the criminal proceedings for compensation for damage caused by a criminal offence, the current Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 18 July 2025, No. 214-VIII, applicable from 1 January 2026, must be taken into account.
Article 668 provides for exemption from state duty, in particular, for claimants:
- bringing claims for compensation for damage caused by injury or other harm to health;
- bringing claims for compensation for material damage caused by a criminal offence.
Article 668 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Exemption from State Duty
This is particularly important because some ZakonPravo materials concerning legal costs refer to the former numbering of the Tax Code. For cases arising in 2026, the Tax Code dated 18 July 2025, No. 214-VIII, should be relied upon.
29. The Victim’s Civil Claim
The victim may seek compensation for the following:
Material Damage
For example:
- medical treatment costs;
- medicines;
- diagnostic examinations;
- rehabilitation treatment;
- transport expenses;
- lost income;
- other documented expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Damage
The victim is entitled to seek monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
Legal Representation Expenses
Article 166 of the CPC allows expenses related to legal representation to be included.
30. Can a Civil Claim Be Filed After the Criminal Proceedings Have Concluded?
Yes.
If the victim:
- did not file a claim;
- withdrew the claim;
- had the claim left without consideration,
the victim is entitled to bring the claim in civil proceedings.
This follows directly from part 3 of Article 166 of the CPC. (Zakon i Pravo)
Consequently, the absence of a civil claim in the criminal case does not necessarily deprive the victim of the right to seek compensation at a later stage.
31. Pre-Trial Procedure
No special civil-law claim procedure is предусмотрed for qualification under Article 110.
The proceedings commence in accordance with criminal procedure.
However, Article 110 has a specific feature relating to the form of criminal prosecution.
32. Private-Public Prosecution
Pursuant to Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, cases under Part One of Article 110 fall within the category of private-public prosecution.
However, Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 110 is not included in the list set out in Part 3 of Article 32.
Therefore, under the current version of Article 32, a case under Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 110 falls within public prosecution.
This is a fundamental distinction.
33. Consequences of Public Prosecution
In cases involving public prosecution:
- Criminal prosecution does not depend on the wishes of the victim;
- Withdrawal of the victim's complaint does not automatically terminate the proceedings;
- The victim's waiver of claims does not automatically result in termination of the case;
- The State, acting through the criminal prosecution authorities, continues the proceedings where there are legal grounds to do so.
34. Reconciliation of the Parties
A fundamental question arises here.
Part 1 of Article 68 of the Criminal Code provides for exemption from criminal liability upon reconciliation in cases involving criminal offences of minor or medium gravity, provided that:
- Reconciliation has taken place;
- The harm caused has been remedied;
- The offence is not associated with a person's death.
However, the offence under Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 110 is a serious crime.
Consequently, Part 1 of Article 68 is not directly applicable.
35. Is Reconciliation Possible in the Case of a Serious Crime?
Part 2 of Article 68 permits, in certain circumstances, exemption from criminal liability for a serious crime committed for the first time by specific categories of persons, for example:
- Minors;
- Pregnant women;
- Women who have or are raising a young child;
- Men raising a young child alone;
- Certain age categories of persons.
However, the conditions prescribed by law must be satisfied.
In addition, Part 4 of Article 68 contains exceptions.
Nevertheless, Article 110 itself is not expressly identified as an absolute prohibition on the application of Article 68.
Therefore, the possibility of terminating a particular case requires an examination of:
- The identity and personal circumstances of the accused;
- The category of the crime;
- Whether the crime was committed for the first time;
- The absence of statutory exceptions;
- The nature of the consequences;
- Whether genuine reconciliation has taken place;
- Whether the harm has been remedied.
36. What Does “Remedying the Harm” Mean?
The Supreme Court indicates that remedying the harm must be:
- Real and actual;
- Carried out before reconciliation;
- Accomplished before the decision to exempt the person from criminal liability is made.
For example:
- Payment of compensation;
- Payment of medical expenses;
- Compensation for property damage;
- Other forms of actual restoration of the rights that have been violated.
37. A Simple Statement That “I Have No Claims” Is Not Sufficient
The court must verify:
- Voluntariness;
- The absence of pressure;
- The genuineness of the reconciliation;
- Whether the harm has been remedied;
- The existence of legal grounds for applying Article 68.
This is particularly important in cases involving violence.
The Supreme Court expressly indicates that the voluntariness of the victim's expression of will forms part of the subject matter of proof when Article 68 is applied. (Zakon i Pravo)
38. Mediation
Reconciliation may also take place through mediation.
However, a mediation agreement in itself does not replace the verification of the criminal-law requirements.
The court must establish:
- Whether the victim genuinely consents;
- Whether the consent is voluntary;
- Whether the harm has been remedied;
- Whether there are lawful grounds for terminating the proceedings.
39. Judicial Practice under Article 68
In its regulatory resolution concerning Article 68, the Supreme Court emphasises that the provision must be applied where the complete set of conditions established by law has been met.
At the same time:
- A dispute concerning the amount of compensation may indicate that reconciliation has not taken place;
- Remedying the harm must be real and actual;
- The victim's statement must be made freely;
- If any of the required conditions is absent, termination under Article 68 is impermissible.
40. Persons Participating in the Case
The principal participants are:
Court
Administers justice and adjudicates the criminal case.
Prosecutor
Conducts the prosecution on behalf of the State and exercises supervisory powers in the forms prescribed by law.
Defendant
A person in respect of whom the criminal case has been referred to the court.
Defence Counsel
A lawyer who exercises the right to defence.
Victim
A person who has directly suffered the following as a result of a criminal offence:
- Moral harm;
- Physical harm;
- Property damage.
Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the status of the victim in detail. Article 71 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Victim
Victim's Representative
May participate in the case and exercise the rights granted by law.
Civil Claimant
Where a civil claim has been filed.
Civil Defendant
Where the case involves a corresponding civil-law element.
Witnesses
Persons who possess information concerning circumstances relevant to the case.
Expert
Engaged, in particular, to conduct forensic medical and other specialised examinations.
Specialist
May participate in work involving digital evidence, video recordings, audio recordings, technical objects, and other similar materials.
41. Victim
Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes a broad range of rights for the victim.
In particular, the victim has the right to:
- know about the suspicion and the charges;
- give testimony;
- submit evidence;
- file motions;
- challenge persons participating in the proceedings;
- use the services of an interpreter;
- have a representative;
- bring a civil claim;
- demand compensation for harm;
- appeal procedural decisions.
42. Particular Importance of the Victim's Representative
In torture cases, the victim's representative may:
- seek the proper legal classification of the act;
- file motions for the appointment of expert examinations;
- ensure the preservation of digital evidence;
- participate in interrogations;
- put questions to the expert;
- seek recognition of a person as a victim;
- bring a civil claim;
- appeal the investigator's failure to act;
- appeal rulings and decisions;
- monitor the completeness of the investigation.
43. Proof
The general rules of proof are established by the Criminal Procedure Code.
In particular, the following must be proven in the case:
- the occurrence of the criminal offence;
- the person who committed the act;
- guilt;
- the form of guilt;
- motive;
- purpose;
- the nature and amount of the harm;
- circumstances affecting liability.
In cases of torture committed for hire, it is additionally necessary to prove:
the fact of hiring.
44. Subject Matter of Proof under Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 110
For practical purposes, it is advisable to divide the subject matter of proof into 10 blocks:
Block 1. The Incident
When, where, and how the violence was committed.
Block 2. The Victim
Who exactly was subjected to the acts.
Block 3. The Perpetrator
Who directly carried out the acts.
Block 4. Nature of the Violence
What specific acts were committed.
Block 5. Suffering
Why those acts caused physical or psychological suffering.
Block 6. Purpose
The purpose of inflicting torment.
Block 7. Particular Cruelty / Humiliation
Specific facts confirming this element.
Block 8. Consequences
What harm was caused.
Block 9. Hiring
Who commissioned the act, what was offered, and what remuneration was promised.
Block 10. Subjective Connection
Why the perpetrator acted specifically within the framework of the hiring arrangement.
45. Medical Examination
In such cases, a forensic medical examination is of crucial importance.
In particular, it should answer the following questions:
- what injuries are present;
- the mechanism by which they were caused;
- their age;
- their number;
- their location;
- the degree of harm to health;
- whether the injuries could have occurred under the circumstances described;
- whether the injuries could have occurred simultaneously or at different times.
However, the expert must not substitute themselves for the court or provide a legal classification.
The expert answers medical questions.
The court decides:
whether the totality of the established circumstances constitutes torture.
46. Psychological and Psychiatric Evidence
Psychological suffering may have independent significance.
Depending on the circumstances, the following may be examined:
- psychological trauma;
- fear;
- humiliation;
- prolonged stress;
- the consequences of systematic violence.
However, it is necessary to avoid conflating:
moral suffering and a medical mental disorder.
These are different categories.
47. Video Recordings
Video recordings may be of exceptional importance.
For example:
- a shop surveillance camera;
- an entrance-area surveillance camera;
- a vehicle dashcam;
- a courtyard surveillance camera;
- an office surveillance camera;
- a phone recording;
- a Telegram recording;
- a recording made by an eyewitness.
However, the following must be established:
- the source;
- integrity;
- date;
- time;
- location;
- continuity;
- absence of editing or manipulation.
48. Witness Testimony
The testimony of the following witnesses is particularly important:
- eyewitnesses;
- neighbours;
- relatives;
- colleagues;
- persons present when the money was transferred;
- intermediaries;
- persons who knew about the commission;
- persons to whom the accused spoke about the commission.
However, witness testimony must be assessed together with other evidence.
49. Correspondence Between the Commissioning Party and the Perpetrator
This may potentially be one of the strongest pieces of evidence of the “for hire” element.
For example:
“Make sure he cannot forget this for more than a month.”
However, the court must examine:
- who owns the account;
- who wrote the messages;
- who received the messages;
- which device was used;
- when the correspondence was created;
- whether the original file exists;
- whether the messages are corroborated by other evidence.
50. Bank Transfers
If, after the violence has been committed:
- the commissioning party transfers money to the perpetrator;
- the perpetrator receives the payment;
- the purpose of the payment is connected to the arrangement;
this may confirm the element of hiring.
However, a single transfer is not sufficient in itself.
Its purpose must be established.
For example:
a transfer of KZT 100,000 to a relative
does not automatically become payment for a crime.
51. Cash
The transfer of cash may be proven through:
- statements of the participants;
- witness testimony;
- video recordings;
- audio recordings;
- correspondence;
- subsequent messages;
- records of cash withdrawals;
- operational-search measures.
52. Admissibility of Evidence
Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes the grounds for declaring factual data inadmissible.
The following is particularly important:
factual data must be declared inadmissible if it was obtained in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code and the violation affected or could have affected its reliability.
The provision separately identifies data obtained through:
- the use of torture;
- violence;
- threats;
- deception;
- other unlawful acts;
- cruel treatment.
Article 112 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Factual Data Inadmissible as Evidence
53. The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine
In Kazakhstan's criminal proceedings, the admissibility of evidence is a matter of independent significance.
If the initial evidence was obtained unlawfully, derivative evidence must also be analysed.
For example:
unlawful interrogation → information about a phone is obtained → correspondence is extracted from the phone.
The defence is entitled to raise the issue of the admissibility of the relevant derivative materials, taking into account the specific circumstances in which they were obtained.
54. Application of Procedural Coercive Measures
Article 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for other procedural coercive measures, including:
- an undertaking to appear;
- compulsory attendance;
- temporary suspension from office;
- seizure of property;
- a prohibition on approaching a person.
55. Prohibition on Approaching the Victim
This is particularly relevant in a torture case.
If there is a risk of:
- repeated violence;
- pressure;
- contact with the victim;
- threats;
- destruction of evidence;
- influencing witnesses;
the application of restrictions provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code may be considered.
56. Preventive Measures
Article 136 of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes the grounds for applying preventive measures.
The Criminal Procedure Code expressly includes Article 110 in the list of criminal offences for which detention in custody may be applied on the grounds of the seriousness of the offence and/or its legal classification.
Article 136 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Grounds for Applying Preventive Measures
This is a significant feature.
However, the mere existence of Article 110 does not automatically mean that the person will be detained in custody.
The court must assess the procedural risks.
57. A Less Restrictive Preventive Measure
Article 136 provides that the possibility of applying a less restrictive preventive measure must be considered where such a measure is available.
Accordingly, the defence is entitled to substantiate:
- the absence of a risk of absconding;
- the existence of a permanent place of residence;
- the existence of a family;
- employment;
- the absence of a criminal record;
- positive character references;
- the absence of attempts to exert pressure;
- voluntary appearance;
- admission of certain circumstances;
- other relevant circumstances.
58. Compulsory Attendance
Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits compulsory attendance where a person fails to appear when summoned without a valid reason.
Article 157 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Compulsory Attendance
Compulsory attendance may be applied to:
- a suspect;
- an accused person;
- a defendant;
- a witness;
- a victim.
At the same time, the law establishes restrictions, particularly with respect to:
- minors;
- pregnant women;
- sick persons;
- persons below a specified age.
59. Monetary Penalty
Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the possibility of imposing a monetary penalty.
Article 160 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Procedure for Imposing a Monetary Penalty
The maximum amount of the penalty under the cited provision is up to 50 monthly calculation indices (MCI).
It is applied where procedural obligations are breached in the cases prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code.
60. Seizure of Property
If there are grounds to believe that property may be:
- concealed;
- alienated;
- destroyed;
- used to secure a civil claim;
a seizure of property may be imposed.
This is particularly important for the victim where the property claim is substantial.
61. Securing a Civil Claim
Where a civil claim has been filed, the victim should consider the following measures in a timely manner:
- imposing an attachment;
- securing property;
- identifying bank accounts;
- identifying the accused’s assets;
- taking other measures provided for by law.
The objective is to ensure the effective enforcement of the future court judgment.
62. Limitation Period for Criminal Prosecution
Under Article 71 of the Criminal Code, the limitation periods are as follows:
- 1 year — criminal infraction;
- 2 years — minor offense;
- 5 years — medium-gravity offense;
- 10 years — serious offense;
- 15 years — especially serious offense.
Since Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 110 concerns a serious offense, the general limitation period is 10 years.
63. Special Feature: Torture and Limitation Periods
Part 6 of Article 71 provides that limitation periods do not apply, in particular, to torture.
However, it is necessary to distinguish between:
torture under Article 146 of the Criminal Code
and
torment under Article 110 of the Criminal Code.
The mere fact that both acts involve cruel treatment does not automatically mean that the exception under Article 71 extends to every instance of torment.
If the act is classified exclusively under Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 110, the limitation regime established for the relevant category of offense applies.
64. Limitation Period for Filing a Civil Claim
Two concepts must be distinguished:
- the limitation period for criminal prosecution;
- the limitation period for a civil claim.
These are different periods.
The general limitation period under the Civil Code is three years. Article 178 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — General Limitation Period
However, Article 187 of the Civil Code establishes an exception for claims seeking compensation for harm caused to life or health.
The limitation period does not apply to such claims.
At the same time, if a claim is filed after a significant period has elapsed, compensation for the relevant harm is limited to the three years preceding the filing of the claim.
65. Restoration of the Limitation Period
Caution is required here.
If the claim is one to which the limitation period does apply, Article 185 of the Civil Code allows the period to be restored in exceptional cases where circumstances relating to the claimant’s person exist, such as:
- serious illness;
- a helpless condition;
- illiteracy;
- other circumstances that prevented the timely protection of the right.
Practical materials published by ZakonPravo reflect the application of this mechanism. Sample Motion to Restore the Limitation Period on ZakonPravo.kz
However, in claims for compensation for harm to health, it is first necessary to determine whether the claim falls under Article 187 of the Civil Code.
66. Practice Regarding the Restoration of Procedural Time Limits
It is necessary to distinguish between:
The limitation period
This is a substantive-law concept.
A procedural time limit
This is the period prescribed for performing a procedural act.
Under the Civil Procedure Code, a court may restore an expired procedural time limit where valid reasons exist.
In ZakonPravo’s practical materials, the following are considered examples of valid reasons:
- illness;
- improper notification;
- late receipt of a judicial act;
- a business trip;
- other objective circumstances.
ZakonPravo Commentary on the Restoration of Procedural Time Limits
However, the rules of the Civil Procedure Code should not be mechanically applied to the limitation periods for criminal prosecution under Article 71 of the Criminal Code.
67. Supreme Court Practice on Torment
The key normative source is Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court dated December 28, 2009.
It contains clarifications concerning:
- protection of human dignity;
- the inadmissibility of torture;
- the admissibility of evidence;
- medical examination;
- complaints concerning violence;
- the distinction between Article 146 and Article 110;
- compensation for harm.
Full Text of Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan
For an advocate, this is the Supreme Court’s principal normative act on these issues.
68. Significance of Paragraph 31-2 of the Supreme Court’s Regulatory Resolution
Paragraph 31-2 is directly relevant to Article 110.
It effectively establishes the following sequence:
violent acts → intent → particular cruelty/humiliation → physical/psychological suffering → the purpose of causing torment.
The absence of any mandatory element raises the question of whether the act has been correctly classified.
69. Significance of Supreme Court Practice on the Admissibility of Evidence
The Supreme Court consistently maintains that evidence obtained in violation of human rights may be declared inadmissible.
The following are of particular importance:
- unlawful questioning;
- violence;
- threats;
- coercion;
- the absence of defence counsel where counsel is mandatory;
- violations of the procedure for conducting an investigative action.
This follows both from Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code and from Regulatory Resolution No. 7.
70. Supreme Court Case Law: Civil Claims
Published Supreme Court practice includes cases in which judicial acts were amended with respect to civil claims following the termination of criminal proceedings.
For example, in one published Supreme Court case, a civil claim was left without consideration after the criminal case was terminated on the relevant grounds, and the victim was informed of the right to bring a claim under civil procedure. (Zakon i Pravo)
This confirms the practical significance of Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
71. New Supreme Court Practice on Representation Expenses
In a published ZakonPravo article concerning the review of a civil case involving compensation for moral harm and losses, the Supreme Court noted that representation expenses incurred in criminal proceedings may be the subject of a civil claim.
The appellate court incorrectly considered that failure to bring the claim during the criminal proceedings precluded subsequent recovery through civil proceedings.
The Supreme Court indicated that Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be taken into account. Material on the Supreme Court’s Position Regarding Representation Expenses and Civil Claims
This is of direct practical significance for cases involving torment.
72. Appellate Court Practice
In cases involving torment, the following issues are particularly significant at the appellate level:
- correctness of the legal classification;
- sufficiency of the evidence;
- admissibility of the evidence;
- compliance with the right to defence;
- individualization of each accomplice’s actions;
- proper assessment of the expert’s opinion;
- justification of the sentence;
- proper resolution of the civil claim.
The appellate court should not limit itself to a formal review of the findings of the court of first instance.
73. A Typical Error by the Court of First Instance
One common procedural problem in criminal cases is insufficient specification of the criminal act.
The court must establish:
- the date;
- the time;
- the place;
- the specific actions;
- the role of each person;
- the method of commission;
- the form of intent;
- the motive;
- the purpose;
- the consequences.
In published Supreme Court case law concerning other categories of criminal cases, the failure to specify these circumstances has served as grounds for overturning judicial acts.
This approach is also applicable to cases involving torment.
74. First-Instance Court Practice: The 2026 Kostanay Case
A notable published example is available from 2026.
Court No. 2 of the city of Kostanay considered a criminal case against a person charged under Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code.
According to the published information:
- the accused registered on Telegram;
- the accused searched for “orders”;
- the accused received an assignment to establish the victim’s whereabouts;
- the accused was supposed to use physical violence;
- a reward of approximately USD 100–200 was promised for carrying out the assignment;
- the victim was located;
- the victim was subjected to multiple blows;
- the accused admitted guilt;
- the victim stated that they had no claims;
- the court imposed a sentence of four years’ imprisonment.
At the time of publication, the judgment had not entered into legal force.
(Ақ Жайық)
This example is of particular interest for analysing the element of “commission for hire.”
75. What the Kostanay Case Demonstrates
The published circumstances reveal the following evidentiary model:
Telegram → search for orders → receipt of an assignment → identification of the victim → physical violence → promised remuneration.
This is practically a classic structure of a crime committed for hire.
It is particularly important that the victim’s statement that they had no claims did not automatically exclude criminal liability.
This is consistent with the public nature of the prosecution under Paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Article 110.
76. The Victim Having No Claims
The statement:
“I have no claims”
does not, by itself, mean:
- that no elements of a criminal offense exist;
- that there is no guilt;
- that the case must be terminated;
- that a sentence cannot be imposed.
It may be relevant when considering:
- the victim’s position;
- the civil claim;
- sentencing;
- whether the harm has been remedied;
- the application of Article 68, provided its requirements are met.
However, Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 68 of the Criminal Code must be applied together.
77. Appeal in the Kostanay Case
At the time of the available publication, the judgment of Court No. 2 of the city of Kostanay had not entered into legal force.
Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn about the position of the appellate court in this particular case.
For a legal commentary, it is important not to present a report about a first-instance judgment as a final judicial position.
78. Practice Involving Digital Orders
The Kostanay case is particularly interesting from the perspective of modern forms of criminal activity.
An order may be placed through:
- Telegram;
- closed chats;
- anonymous accounts;
- cryptocurrency;
- electronic transfers;
- intermediaries.
Accordingly, an investigation must establish not only the perpetrator but also the digital trail of the person who placed the order.
79. The Person Who Placed the Order May Remain Unidentified
The following situation is possible:
- the perpetrator has been identified;
- the person who placed the order used an anonymous account;
- the money was transferred through a third party;
- the person who placed the order has not been identified.
This does not automatically prevent the charge against the perpetrator from being considered.
However, the issue of legal classification must be resolved on the basis of evidence relating directly to the perpetrator.
80. Entrapment
Where an operational experiment or another special investigative measure is involved, the defence is entitled to raise the following questions:
- who initiated the crime;
- whether criminal intent existed before the intervention of law enforcement authorities;
- whether the person was induced to commit the crime;
- whether criminal intent was artificially created.
81. Operational Investigative Measures
Where an operational investigation is being conducted, the following must be examined:
- grounds for conducting operational investigative measures;
- authorization;
- limits of authority;
- legality of audio/video recordings;
- recording procedures;
- transfer of money;
- monitoring of actions;
- preservation of originals.
A violation of the established procedure may raise the issue of the admissibility of the relevant evidence.
82. Examination of a Mobile Phone
When a mobile phone is seized, it is important to establish:
- model;
- IMEI;
- SIM card;
- user;
- method of data extraction;
- software used;
- file hash values;
- data integrity;
- availability of the original.
The defence is entitled to raise the issue of ordering a repeat or additional expert examination.
83. Judicial Examination of Correspondence
A WhatsApp or Telegram screenshot should not be considered in isolation.
It is necessary to establish:
- who took the screenshot;
- from which device;
- whether the correspondence has been preserved in its original form;
- whether a backup copy exists;
- whether the number matches;
- whether the account belongs to the accused;
- whether metadata is available;
- whether the content is corroborated by other materials.
84. Confrontation
A confrontation may be significant where contradictions arise:
- the person who ordered the act claims that no money was promised;
- the perpetrator claims the opposite;
- the intermediary provides a third version;
- the victim describes the events differently.
However, a confrontation must not be used as a means of exerting pressure.
85. Psychological Pressure
During the investigation of a case involving violence, the following are impermissible:
- threats;
- coercion;
- unlawful influence;
- manipulation;
- pressure on the victim;
- coercion to reconcile.
Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court expressly directs courts to protect human dignity and prohibits unlawful treatment.
86. Complaints Against an Investigator’s Actions
Participants in the proceedings are entitled to challenge:
- refusal to recognize a person as a victim;
- refusal to conduct an expert examination;
- refusal to include evidence in the case file;
- investigator inaction;
- unlawful searches;
- unlawful seizure of property or items;
- refusal to question a witness;
- refusal to conduct a confrontation;
- refusal to provide access to the case materials;
- other procedural decisions.
At the pre-trial stage, the investigating judge plays a significant role.
87. A Separate Court Ruling
Where a court establishes serious violations of the law, it may issue a separate ruling in cases provided for by law.
Regulatory Resolution No. 7 provides for the court’s obligation to respond to established unlawful actions by officials that degrade human dignity.
88. Criminal Punishment Imposed by the Court
Subparagraph 5) of Part 2 of Article 110 provides for:
imprisonment for a term of 4 to 7 years.
Consequently, where the current version of subparagraph 5) of Part 2 of Article 110 applies, the court cannot impose the following as the principal punishment instead of the sanction prescribed by that provision:
- corrective labour;
- community service;
- restriction of liberty.
89. Minimum Sentence
The minimum term is 4 years.
However, this does not mean that a four-year sentence must automatically be imposed.
The court applies the general rules governing sentencing, taking into account:
- the nature and degree of public danger posed by the offence;
- the personality of the offender;
- the circumstances of the case;
- mitigating circumstances;
- aggravating circumstances;
- consequences;
- the offender’s role in the crime.
90. Admission of Guilt
An admission of guilt may be taken into account as a circumstance characterizing the defendant’s conduct.
However:
an admission of guilt does not relieve the court of its obligation to examine the evidence.
The court must establish the objective circumstances of the crime.
91. The Victim Cannot “Dictate” the Legal Classification
The victim is entitled to state:
“I was tortured.”
or:
“I was tortured on hire.”
However, the legal classification is determined by:
- the investigative authority;
- the prosecutor;
- the court.
Therefore, the victim’s lawyer must prove the factual circumstances rather than merely repeat the legal formulation.
92. Defence in a Case of Torture Committed for Hire
The principal lines of defence may include:
1. Absence of the act of torture
The violence was of a different nature.
2. Absence of the purpose of causing torment
For example, a one-off conflict.
3. Absence of particular cruelty
The nature of the actions does not meet the requirements of Article 110.
4. Absence of hiring
There is no evidence of an agreement on remuneration.
5. Improper subject of the offence
Age or legal insanity.
6. Error in identifying the perpetrator.
7. Inadmissibility of evidence.
8. Absence of a causal link.
9. Different legal classification.
93. Defence Against the Qualifying Element of “Commission for Hire”
The most effective question is:
How exactly has the fact of hiring been proven?
The investigation must answer the following questions:
- who hired the perpetrator;
- when;
- where;
- by what means;
- what was promised;
- to whom it was promised;
- when it was promised;
- in what form it was promised;
- who was present;
- how this is corroborated;
- whether remuneration was paid;
- what establishes the connection between the money and the crime.
If these questions remain unanswered, the qualifying element requires particularly thorough examination.
94. Defence Against an Accusation of Hiring Where a Money Transfer Exists
For example:
A transfers KZT 100,000 to B.
The investigation alleges:
“This was payment for torture.”
The defence is entitled to examine:
- the basis for the payment;
- the parties’ prior relationship;
- the existence of a debt;
- a loan agreement;
- a purchase;
- the provision of services;
- the date of the payment;
- the purpose of the payment;
- the connection with the crime.
A single bank transfer should not be considered outside its context.
95. Classification Where There Are Multiple Victims
If there are two or more victims, the issue of applying subparagraph 2) of Part 2 of Article 110 may also arise.
If the crime was committed for hire against two persons, the question arises as to whether the offence should be classified under multiple qualifying elements.
The court must precisely determine whether there is:
- a single offence with multiple qualifying elements;
- a concurrence of offences;
- a single criminal intent;
- separate episodes.
96. Torture of a Pregnant Woman for Hire
If the victim is a pregnant woman and the offender knowingly knew of her pregnancy, the additional application of subparagraph 3) of Part 2 of Article 110 may arise.
The following must be proven:
- The fact of pregnancy;
- The offender’s knowledge of the pregnancy;
- The causal link with the act committed.
The objective fact of pregnancy alone is insufficient if the accused was unaware of it and such knowledge is relevant to the subjective element of the qualifying circumstance.
97. Torture of a Minor for Hire
Where the victim is a minor, the relevant qualifying element applies.
It is necessary to establish:
- the victim’s age;
- the offender’s knowledge of the victim’s age;
- the nature of the violence;
- the purpose;
- particular cruelty.
If the person who ordered the crime hired a perpetrator to torture a child, the role of each participant must be established individually.
98. Compensation for Moral Harm
In cases of torture, moral harm may be associated with:
- physical pain;
- fear;
- humiliation;
- a feeling of helplessness;
- prolonged emotional distress;
- disruption of the victim’s normal way of life;
- consequences for the family.
The amount of compensation is determined by the court, taking into account the circumstances of the particular case.
The legislation does not establish an automatic fixed amount of compensation.
99. Evidence of Moral Harm
The following may be used:
- medical records;
- expert opinions;
- the victim’s testimony;
- testimony from relatives;
- information concerning treatment;
- information concerning the consequences;
- documents evidencing expenses;
- other evidence.
It is necessary to distinguish between evidence establishing the fact of moral suffering and evidence establishing the amount of monetary compensation.
100. Lawyer’s Fees
Where the victim engages a lawyer, the relevant expenses may be claimed as part of the expenses associated with participation in criminal proceedings, subject to compliance with the requirements of the law.
Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan expressly provides for representation expenses.
Preserve the Russian meaning more preciselyStandardize Article and part references
101. Main Regulatory Legal Acts
For a comprehensive analysis of a case under subparagraph 5) of paragraph 2 of Article 110, the following sources must be used first and foremost.
1. Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan
In particular:
- Article 13;
- Article 14;
- Article 16;
- Article 17;
- Article 18;
- Article 75;
- Article 77.
Article 17 is the fundamental provision concerning the inviolability of human dignity and the prohibition of violence. (Law and Legal Practice)
2. Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Key provisions:
- Article 1 — criminal legislation;
- Article 3 — basic concepts;
- Article 10 — criminal offenses;
- Article 11 — categories of criminal offenses;
- Article 15 — age of criminal liability;
- Articles 28–31 — complicity in a criminal offense;
- Articles 52–64 — punishment;
- Article 68 — reconciliation;
- Article 71 — limitation period;
- Article 102 — incitement to suicide;
- 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 through systematic abuse (istiazanie);
- Article 146 — torture.
Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on ZakonPravo.kz — Article 110
102. Criminal Procedure Code
Key provisions:
- Article 24 — comprehensiveness, completeness, and objectivity;
- Article 32 — types of criminal prosecution;
- Articles 35–36 — termination of proceedings;
- Article 64 — suspect;
- Articles 65–70 — accused/defendant and defense;
- Article 71 — victim;
- Article 99 — motions;
- Articles 105–106 — complaints;
- Article 112 — inadmissible evidence;
- Article 113 — circumstances subject to proof;
- Article 125 and subsequent articles — evidence;
- Article 136 — preventive measures;
- Article 137 — types of preventive measures;
- Article 140 — procedure for applying preventive measures;
- Article 155 — other measures of procedural coercion;
- Article 157 — compulsory appearance;
- Article 160 — monetary penalty;
- Article 166 — civil claim;
- Article 306 — jurisdiction;
- provisions governing appellate proceedings.
103. Tax Code
For matters concerning state duty in 2026, the new Tax Code must be taken into account:
Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 18, 2025, No. 214-VIII.
Article 668 provides for the relevant exemptions from payment of state duty.
Article 668 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on ZakonPravo.kz
104. Civil Code
For a civil claim:
- Article 917 — general grounds for liability for causing harm;
- Article 951 — compensation for moral harm;
- Article 952 — amount of compensation for moral harm;
- Article 178 — limitation period;
- Article 185 — restoration of the limitation period;
- Article 187 — claims to which the limitation period does not apply.
Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Article 178 on ZakonPravo.kz
Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Article 187 on ZakonPravo.kz
105. Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court
This is the central subordinate regulatory source for the subject under consideration.
It governs:
- torture;
- cruel treatment;
- human dignity;
- admissibility of evidence;
- medical examination;
- distinction between torture and systematic abuse (istiazanie);
- compensation for harm.
106. Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court on Article 68
It is relevant when analyzing reconciliation.
107. International Regulatory Framework
The following must be taken into account:
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 5.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 7.
3. United Nations Convention against Torture
Articles:
1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 16.
4. Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
5. Convention on the Rights of the Child
If the victim is a minor.
108. Regulatory Resolutions as Part of Applicable Law
A distinctive feature of Kazakhstan is that regulatory resolutions of the Supreme Court have a special legal status.
The Criminal Code itself expressly provides that regulatory resolutions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court constitute an integral part of criminal legislation.
(Adilet)
Therefore, Regulatory Resolution No. 7 cannot be regarded merely as a “recommendation.”
It is binding for the purposes of uniform application of criminal law.
109. Practical Algorithm for the Victim’s Lawyer
When handling a case under subparagraph 5) of paragraph 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code, it is recommended to verify the following:
Step 1
Obtain the decision recognizing the person as a victim.
Step 2
Obtain the decision on legal qualification.
Step 3
Verify the factual description of the charges.
Step 4
Verify the forensic medical examination.
Step 5
Obtain all photographs and video recordings.
Step 6
Ensure the preservation of digital data.
Step 7
Verify banking transactions.
Step 8
Identify intermediaries.
Step 9
Prove the fact of hiring.
Step 10
File a civil claim.
Step 11
Submit a motion to secure the claim.
Step 12
Review the issue of the preventive measure.
110. Practical Algorithm for the Defense
The defense should consistently examine the following:
- legality of the registration of the criminal case;
- legality of the initial detention;
- existence of actual detention;
- compliance with the right to legal counsel;
- medical examination;
- admissibility of confessional statements;
- legality of the seizure of the telephone;
- legality of the digital forensic examination;
- ownership of the accounts;
- authenticity of the correspondence;
- source of the funds;
- fact of hiring;
- purpose of inflicting suffering;
- degree of bodily harm;
- legal qualification;
- complicity;
- circumstances mitigating the punishment;
- possibility of applying Article 68 of the Criminal Code;
- civil claim.
111. The Most Vulnerable Element of the Prosecution’s Case
In cases under subparagraph 5) of paragraph 2 of Article 110, the key issue is often not the violence itself, but rather the following:
Has the fact of hiring been proven?
Physical violence may be obvious and confirmed by medical records and video recordings, while the agreement between the person who commissioned the act and the person who carried it out may remain concealed.
Therefore, the prosecution must prove not only that:
“B. beat K.”
but also that:
“B. committed the acts specifically within the framework of an agreement to carry them out for hire.”
112. The Second Key Issue — The Existence of the Offense of Systematic Abuse (Istiazanie)
Even if the fact of hiring has been proven, it is necessary to establish:
Why does the conduct constitute systematic abuse (istiazanie)?
For example:
A. hired B. to strike V. once.
If a certain degree of bodily harm results, this does not automatically constitute an offense under Article 110.
The mandatory elements of systematic abuse must be established.
113. The Third Key Issue — The Degree of Harm
If the victim has suffered:
- grievous bodily harm;
- bodily harm of medium severity,
it becomes necessary to examine the possibility of qualification under other provisions of the Criminal Code.
Therefore, in such cases, the forensic medical examination has not merely evidentiary significance, but also significance for legal qualification.
114. The Fourth Key Issue — Purpose
For Article 110 to apply, it is necessary to establish the purpose of inflicting suffering on the victim.
If the person acted with a different purpose, it is necessary to examine whether the actual conduct falls within the scope of Article 110.
115. The Fifth Key Issue — Particular Cruelty and Humiliation
The phrase:
“delivered several blows”
does not, by itself, establish this element.
The investigation and the court must specify:
- the number of blows;
- the parts of the body at which the blows were directed;
- the method used;
- the instrument used;
- the duration of the conduct;
- whether the victim was restrained;
- whether pain was intentionally inflicted;
- whether mockery or humiliation occurred;
- whether degrading treatment took place;
- whether the victim was deprived of the ability to defend themselves.
116. The Court Decision Must Be Specific
The conviction must individually identify:
- the actions of each accused person;
- the circumstances;
- the evidence;
- the legal qualification;
- the finding of guilt;
- the punishment.
It is not sufficient to limit the decision to the general statement:
“the defendant, acting jointly with other persons, committed systematic abuse for hire.”
It is necessary to specify:
- who;
- what;
- when;
- where;
- against whom;
- for what remuneration;
- by what method;
- with what intent.
117. Appellate Strategy
The arguments in an appellate complaint must be structured.
Section 1. Violation of Criminal Law
For example:
- incorrect legal qualification;
- absence of the element of hiring;
- absence of a mandatory element of Article 110.
Section 2. Violation of the Criminal Procedure Code
For example:
- inadmissible evidence;
- violation of the right to defense;
- incomplete examination of the evidence;
- absence of reasoning.
Section 3. Assessment of Evidence
Separately:
- medical records;
- video recordings;
- correspondence;
- banking transactions;
- testimony.
Section 4. Punishment
Only after analyzing guilt and legal qualification.
118. Practical Table of Legal Qualification
| Situation | Possible legal assessment |
|---|---|
| A single blow without a character intended to cause prolonged suffering | Examination of Article 109-1 |
| Minor bodily harm | Article 108-1, if the elements of the offense are present |
| Bodily harm of medium severity | Article 107, if the elements of the offense are present |
| Grievous bodily harm | Article 106, if the elements of the offense are present |
| Systematic acts of violence or acts of violence of a tormenting nature | Article 110 |
| Systematic abuse committed for remuneration | Subparagraph 5) of paragraph 2 of Article 110 |
| Systematic abuse of a pregnant woman where the perpetrator was knowingly aware of the pregnancy | Subparagraph 3) of paragraph 2 of Article 110 |
| Systematic abuse of a minor | The relevant qualifying subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Article 110 |
| Torture where the elements of Article 146 are present | Article 146 |
| Systematic abuse without proven hiring | Paragraph 1 or another applicable offense, depending on the facts |
119. Particular Attention to Terminology
In procedural documents, the following precise wording must be used:
“Subparagraph 5) of paragraph 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan”
and not:
- “Article 110, paragraph 2, for hire”;
- “Article 110, subparagraph 5”;
- “paragraph 5 of Article 110.”
The correct reference for a legal document is:
Subparagraph 5) of paragraph 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
120. Conclusion
Subparagraph 5) of paragraph 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes a qualified offense of systematic abuse (istiazanie), in which the basic offense of systematic abuse is supplemented by a special circumstance — the commission of the offense for hire.
For correct legal qualification, it is necessary to prove not only the fact of violence, but the totality of the following elements:
intentional violence
- physical or psychological suffering;
- particular cruelty or humiliation;
- the purpose of inflicting suffering;
- absence of grievous bodily harm or bodily harm of medium severity for the basic offense;
- an agreement to carry out the acts for hire;
- a causal link between the hiring arrangement and the acts committed.
At the same time, subparagraph 5) of paragraph 2 of Article 110 constitutes a serious crime, since the maximum penalty is seven years of imprisonment. (Adilet)
The proceedings are conducted under the public prosecution procedure, since paragraph 3 of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code classifies paragraph 1 of Article 110 as an offense subject to private-public prosecution, but does not include subparagraph 5) of paragraph 2 of Article 110. (Law and Legal Practice)
A civil claim may be filed within the criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including claims for compensation for property damage and moral harm, as well as expenses incurred for legal representation. (Law and Legal Practice)
Under the applicable Tax Code, claims for compensation for harm to health and material damage caused by a criminal offense are exempt from state duty. (Law and Legal Practice)
Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court is of particular importance for legal qualification. It clarifies the mandatory elements of systematic abuse, the requirements for the admissibility of evidence, the distinction between systematic abuse and torture, and issues concerning compensation for harm. (Law and Legal Practice)
Among the publicly available published judicial practice as of October 3, 2026, a case heard by Court No. 2 of the city of Kostanay is of particular interest. In that case, under subparagraph 5) of paragraph 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code, it was established that an order had been received through Telegram, the victim had been searched for, and violence had been inflicted on the victim in exchange for promised remuneration. The court of first instance imposed a sentence of four years of imprisonment; at the time of publication, the judgment had not entered into legal force. (Aq Zhaiyq)
Thus, proof of the element of “for hire” must be an independent subject of proof, rather than being inferred automatically from the existence of monetary relations between individuals. At the same time, the court must establish all mandatory elements of systematic abuse, since the mere infliction of physical pain or the existence of a financial interest does not, by itself, constitute the offense provided for in subparagraph 5) of paragraph 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code.
Main Links on ZakonPravo.kz
- Article 110 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Systematic Abuse (Istiazanie)
- Article 11 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Categories of Criminal Offenses
- Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Reconciliation
- Article 71 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Release from Criminal Liability Due to Expiration of the Limitation Period
- Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Cases Subject to Private, Private-Public, and Public Prosecution
- Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Victim
- Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Factual Data Inadmissible as Evidence
- Article 136 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Grounds for Applying Preventive Measures
- Article 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Grounds for Applying Other Measures of Procedural Coercion
- Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Compulsory Appearance
- Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Procedure for Imposing a Monetary Penalty
- Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Civil Claims Considered in Criminal Proceedings
- Article 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Criminal Cases Within the Jurisdiction of District and Equivalent Courts
- Article 668 of the Tax Code — Exemption from Payment of State Duty in Courts
- Article 178 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Limitation Periods
- Article 187 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Claims Not Subject to the Limitation Period
- Regulatory Resolution No. 7 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 28, 2009
- Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Application of Article 68 of the Criminal Code
- Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan — Article 17
- On the Accession of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
- On the Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Correct the Article 110 legal terminologyClarify the qualification and harm analysis
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
