Women who have previously been sentenced to imprisonment for an intentional crime and who have committed an intentional crime again are assigned to serve their sentences in institutions of the maximum security penal system.

By the verdict of the Kokshetau City Court dated December 10, 2019: K., previously, on April 29, 2016, convicted under paragraph 1) of part 3 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) to 4 years in prison, on December 5, 2018, transferred to an institution of the minimum security penal enforcement system, convicted under part 2 Article 429 of the Criminal Code leads to 5 years of imprisonment, and 70 hours of community service under part 1 of Article 378 of the Criminal Code. On the basis of part 3 of Article 58, Article 60 of the Criminal Code, 5 years and 3 months of imprisonment were finally imposed, while serving the sentence in an institution of the medium-security penal system. In K.'s actions, by virtue of part 1 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, a recidivism of crimes was recognized. By the verdict of the court, K. was found guilty of using violence that was not dangerous to life and health against the staff of the institution, ensuring the isolation of convicts from society, and insulting government officials in the performance of their official duties. By the decision of the judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Akmola Regional Court dated January 22, 2020, the verdict was left unchanged. In accordance with paragraph 2) Part 3 of Article 62 of the Criminal Code of the convicted K., the time of detention before the verdict entered into force was calculated from July 25, 2019 to January 30, 2020, inclusive, based on one day of detention for one and a half days of serving a sentence of imprisonment in a medium-security institution. The Prosecutor General's protest raises the issue of changing the sentence against convicted K. in connection with the incorrect application of the criminal law, which led to an incorrect definition of the type of institution of the penal system. In the petition, the convicted K., disagreeing with the judicial acts, asks them to be canceled, considering that her guilt has not been proven by the case materials, the incompleteness and one-sidedness of the judicial investigation were admitted, and the actions were given an incorrect legal assessment, since there was no threat to the victims' lives on her part. He believes that the victims are giving false testimony, the case was considered in violation of the norms of the procedural law.

Women who have previously been sentenced to imprisonment for an intentional crime and who have committed an intentional crime again are assigned to serve their sentences in institutions of the maximum security penal system.

Conclusions of the court on the guilt of the convicted K. In the acts incriminated to her, the circumstances set out in the court verdict are correct and based on the totality of evidence examined at the court session, which is also not disputed in the prosecutor's protest. Convicted K. admitted her guilt in the main trial and testified that, standing up for convicted Zh., together with the latter, she punched an employee of the institution M., and when an employee of the institution N. kicked her in the stomach, she bent over in pain and, raising her head, hit R. in the face. She also admits that she used foul language against the staff of the institution. At the same time, I saw one of the employees filming their actions on a video camera. In addition, the guilt of the convicted K. is confirmed by the testimony of the victims R., N., E., I., B., F., T. and E., witnesses I., B., D., K., conclusions of forensic medical, psychological and philological examinations, video recordings of the offense viewed in court, physical evidence. It follows from the explanation of victim N. that during the personal search, the convicted K. I hit her head in the face area and blood gushed from her nose. This fact was confirmed by a video recording made in the disciplinary detention center. In the presence of such evidence, K.'s actions are correctly qualified under part 2 of Article 429, part 1 of Article 378 of the Criminal Code. The punishment of the convicted woman was imposed in accordance with the requirements of Article 52 of the Criminal Code and is fair. The convict's arguments about the lack of proof of her guilt are untenable, since they are refuted by the evidence examined in court, which has been objectively evaluated. The case file shows that K. was duly notified by the appellate instance of the time and place of the case consideration. Since in the appellate instance the issue of the deterioration of the situation of the convicted K. If the case was not raised, the judicial board reasonably considered the case without her participation, which meets the requirements of Article 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC). In this regard, the petition of the convicted person must be dismissed. At the same time, the protest arguments are well-founded and must be satisfied.

According to paragraph 3) of Part 5 of Article 46 of the Criminal Code, persons sentenced to imprisonment who previously served imprisonment for committing an intentional crime, with the exception of persons convicted of crimes not related to violence provided for in Chapters 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 of this Code, as well as persons convicted of crimes provided for in Chapter 15 of this Code, in the event of full compensation for the damage caused by the crime, the serving of imprisonment shall be imposed in institutions of the maximum security penal system. It is established that K. She was found guilty under articles of the Criminal Code, which relate to chapters 16 and 17 of the Criminal Code. It also follows from the case file that K. had previously been sentenced to imprisonment for an intentional crime and had actually served her sentence in places of detention. Under the established circumstances, the board considers that the convicted K. should be assigned to serve her sentence in an institution of the maximum security penal system. The protest does not raise the issue of repealing paragraph 2) of part 3 of Article 62 of the CPC, applied to the court of appeal, in connection with which the collegium cannot, on its own initiative, worsen the situation of the convicted person. Based on the above, the Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court amended the judicial acts of the local courts in respect of K. and canceled the serving of the sentence in an institution of the medium-security penal system and ordered the serving of the sentence in an institution of the maximum-security penal system. The rest of the judicial acts remained unchanged. The protest of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan is satisfied, the petition of the convicted K. left without satisfaction. 

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