Analytical Report The Operation of the Judiciary in the Republic of Kazakhstan

Analytical Report  The Operation of the Judiciary in the Republic of Kazakhstan

 1.Introduction and Methodology
During the tenure of the first President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, concerns were consistently raised regarding the decisions rendered in administrative and criminal proceedings brought against civil society activists. It has been argued that the administrative control exerted by the Presidential Administration over the appointment and career progression of judges created a framework that influenced judicial outcomes, which attracted significant, consistent criticism from domestic human rights defenders and international observers. Human rights organisations maintain that this trend, reinforced by the institutional structures ingrained during the multi-decadal Nazarbayev era, continues to influence current judicial practice.
          This analytical report examines the operation of the judiciary in the Republic of Kazakhstan, specifically assessing the implementation of constitutional guarantees concerning the right to a fair trial, freedom of peaceful assembly, equality before the law, and the principle of judicial independence. This study is prompted by ongoing public scrutiny regarding the independence of the judiciary in the Republic of Kazakhstan, particularly concerning the adjudication of cases involving the exercise of fundamental civil and political rights. The scope of this study encompasses the adjudication of administrative and criminal proceedings by the judiciary in the Republic of Kazakhstan, specifically in relation to the exercise of fundamental civil and political rights. The core of this inquiry pertains to the adjudication of cases involving liability under Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences and Article 405 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, including an analysis of the procedural practices applied by the judiciary in these determinations. This research employs a multi-faceted methodological framework, comprising a systematic review of the relevant legislative and regulatory instruments, a content analysis of judicial decisions, a comparative legal assessment, a qualitative evaluation of representative case studies, and an examination of the broader institutional environment in which these proceedings occur. This report is predicated upon a detailed analysis of select judicial decisions; it does not claim to provide a statistically exhaustive survey of all judicial activity within the Republic of Kazakhstan. Nevertheless, the recurring patterns and legal methodologies identified during this research support the conclusion that systemic tendencies persist in judicial application.

2. Statutory Safeguards and International Standards

Articles 8 through 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establish the fundamental protections concerning the right to an effective remedy, the prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial and legal defence. ^[1]
Pursuant to Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Republic of Kazakhstan acceded via Law No. 91 on 28 November 2005, the State is under a legal obligation to ensure equality before courts and tribunals. ^[2] Specifically, Article 14 mandates that in the determination of any criminal charge or of rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law. Furthermore, the Covenant guarantees the right of any person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Pursuant to Article 13, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, “every individual is entitled to the judicial protection of their fundamental rights and freedoms, alongside a corollary right to professional legal assistance. In accordance with statutory provisions, such legal assistance shall be rendered at public expense where the interests of justice so require”. ^[3]
Under Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the principle of equality before the law and the courts is enshrined. This provision mandates that no individual shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of origin, social, official or property status, sex, race, nationality, language, religious conviction, personal beliefs, place of residence, or any other analogous circumstances. ^[4]

Article 75 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan delineates the foundational framework of the judicial system, establishing the following principles:

1. “Justice within the Republic of Kazakhstan shall be administered exclusively by the courts.
2. Judicial authority shall be exercised through civil, criminal, and other statutory forms of legal proceedings. Where prescribed by law, criminal proceedings shall be conducted with the participation of a jury.
3. The judiciary of the Republic comprises the Supreme Court, alongside local and other courts established by legislation.
4. The judicial system of the Republic is governed by the Constitution and relevant constitutional law; the establishment of special or extraordinary courts, under any designation, is strictly prohibited.” ^[5]

Statutory legislation further codifies these fundamental principles of justice. Specifically, the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan enshrines the principles of legality (Article 8), equality before the law and the judiciary (Article 9), and the presumption of innocence (Article 10). Furthermore, it guarantees the right to qualified legal assistance (Article 20), the right to challenge procedural decisions and actions (Article 23), and the comprehensive judicial protection of the rights, freedoms, and lawful interests of the individual (Article 24), inter alia. ^[6]
The Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan enshrines a comprehensive suite of fundamental procedural safeguards. These include, inter alia: the principle of legality (Article 10); the exclusive administration of justice by the courts (Article 11); the judicial protection of human and civil rights and freedoms (Article 12); the safeguarding of individual rights during criminal proceedings (Article 15); the presumption of innocence (Article 19); the principle of equality before the law and the judiciary (Article 21); the independence of the judge (Article 22); and the principle of adversariality and equality of arms (Article 23). ^[7]
Whilst a formal framework of human rights protections is established through specific legislative codes, the practical application of these instruments by investigative authorities, the prosecution, and the judiciary frequently reveals a departure from such guarantees. This is particularly evident in proceedings involving individuals who maintain an active political dissent against the incumbent administration, where the implementation of statutory standards often results in systemic procedural or substantive violations. 
This judicial practice is inextricably linked to the mechanisms established under Article 31 of Constitutional Law No. 132 (25 December 2000), ‘On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges of the Republic of Kazakhstan.’ ^[8] Under this provision, the appointment of the judiciary is centrally contingent upon Executive prerogative, specifically the President of the Republic acting upon the recommendations of the Supreme Judicial Council.
In accordance with Article 4(1) of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 4 December 2015 (No. 436-V) ‘On the Supreme Judicial Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan’, the Council is comprised of a Chairperson and members appointed directly by the President of the Republic. The appointment of the Chairperson is subject to the prior consent of the Senate of the Parliament. ^[9]
Civil society and legal practitioners have consistently raised concerns that the delivery of a judgment in favour of a politically active citizen, whether through an acquittal or the termination of administrative or criminal proceedings, may significantly prejudice a judge’s professional tenure and career progression.

3. Principal Challenges in the Judicial Practice of the Republic of Kazakhstan
   3.1. The judiciary maintains an expansive and, at times, arbitrary  interpretation of Article 405 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. This provision, which establishes criminal liability for the organisation of, or participation in, the activities of a public or religious association following a judicial decree of prohibition or liquidation on grounds of extremism or terrorism, is frequently applied in a manner that lacks clear legal foreseeable limits. Legitimate and peaceful opposition activity is increasingly subject to reclassification as participation in ‘extremist’ organisations or the dissemination of ‘prohibited’ information. Such characterisations frequently lead to criminal prosecutions, culminating in the imposition of custodial sentences. These findings are corroborated by international monitoring bodies, which characterise such occurrences as a systemic practice. ^[10] There is clear evidence that counter-terrorism and anti-extremism legislation is being deployed in circumstances where international human rights standards demand the utmost judicial restraint. Central to this issue is the failure to maintain a clear, mandatory distinction between the incitement to violence and peaceful political criticism.
   3.2. There is evidence of excessive reliance on pre-trial detention as a coercive measure against political activists. The imposition of prolonged periods of remand in detention facilities significantly prejudices the ability of the accused to secure consistent access to qualified legal counsel. Furthermore, such restrictive environment hinders the retrieval of essential documentation and fundamentally compromises the preparation of an effective legal defence. ^[11]
   3.3. Significant departures from fair trial guarantees have been characterised by systemic restrictions on the disclosure of evidence, notably through the inappropriate application of ‘classified’ designations, and the imposition of barriers to privileged communication between defendants and their legal representatives. These deficiencies are compounded by the frequent utilisation of closed procedural records. Furthermore, the transparency of the judicial process is undermined by the arbitrary limitation of media and independent observer presence, a concern corroborated by OSCE/ODIHR monitoring which has documented substantial procedural irregularities in several high-profile proceedings. ^[12] Such instances often involve the curtailment of access to the case file and trial protocols alongside the use of expedited ‘in-camera’ hearings.
   3.4. Selective prosecution and the absence of judicial independence. Whilst the judiciary remains formally independent under the statutory framework, authoritative international assessments consistently highlight the prevalence of politically motivated proceedings, which fundamentally challenge the principle of judicial impartiality. ^[13] The identification of divergent judicial outcomes in factually analogous cases indicates a pattern of selective enforcement.3.5. Systemic constraints on freedom of peaceful assembly and the imposition of legal liability are characterised by the frequent imposition of administrative sanctions against participants and organisers. These measures include the widespread use of administrative detention, the arbitrary prohibition of public events, and the levying of substantial fines. Such practices are documented as a consistent pattern within the reports of human rights monitors and civil society organisations. ^[14]
   3.6. There is a notable absence of robust public accountability regarding the conduct of law enforcement agencies. The pervasive lack of effective investigations into allegations of excessive use of force, abuse of authority, and the ill-treatment of detainees remains a matter of grave concern. The systemic failure to conduct prompt and impartial inquiries into such conduct results in a culture of impunity, which in turn leads to a fundamental erosion of public confidence in the administration of justice and the institutional integrity of the judiciary. ^[15]

4. Representative (Anonymised) Case Studies

 An analysis of judicial determinations, supplemented by testimonies from individuals subject to administrative and criminal proceedings, reveals a series of recurring systemic features inherent in these cases.
 Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes administrative liability for violations of the legislation governing the organisation and conduct of peaceful assemblies. ^[16]
The provisions of Article 488 are incorporative in nature (frequently termed ‘blanket’ provisions), as their legal effect is contingent upon compliance with the substantive requirements set forth in extrinsic legislation. Specifically, the regulatory framework governing the exercise of the constitutional right of citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan to peaceful assembly, encompassing meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches, and picketing, is established by the Law of 25 May 2020 (No. 333-VI) ‘On the Procedure for Organising and Holding Peaceful Assemblies in the Republic of Kazakhstan‘. ^[17]
On 28 January 2025, the Almaty Specialised Inter-District Administrative Court found Mr Ö. guilty of an administrative offence pursuant to Article 488(12) of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The court imposed an administrative fine of 275,240 tenges.
Article 488(12) of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes liability for the repeated organisation or conduct —within one year of a prior penalty — of assemblies, rallies, demonstrations, marches, or pickets, or other public events in contravention of the established statutory procedure, provided such actions do not meet the threshold of a criminal offence. According to the judicial record, the defendant — having previously been sanctioned under Article 488(7) — conducted an unauthorised single-person picket on 27 January 2025 at approximately 15:20 at Sh. Valikhanov Square, Almaty. The defendant displayed a placard bearing the inscription: “Ұрпаққа жол ашпаған” (“The path for a new generation wasn’t open”). The court determined that the picket failed to comply with the statutory procedure governing peaceful assemblies, thereby satisfying the criteria for an offence under Article 488(12).
On 8 February 2023, the Kokshetau Specialised Administrative Offences Court (Akmola Region) convicted Ms Sh. of an offence under Article 488(11) of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, imposing an administrative fine of 107,205 tenges.
The case file indicates that at approximately 11:30 on 14 November 2022, Sh. — having been previously sanctioned under Article 488(6) — participated together with other individuals in a peaceful assembly on Kausar Street opposite building No. 2 in Kokshetau. The court determined that the gathering lacked the requisite prior notification to the local executive authority or an application seeking official approval, mandated by Article 4(2) of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 25 May 2020 ‘On the Procedure for Organising and Holding Peaceful Assemblies in the Republic of Kazakhstan’.
On 7 January 2022, the Uralsk Specialised Administrative Offences Court held Mr A. liable for an offence contrary to Article 488(6) of the Code of Administrative Offences, imposing a sentence of ten days’ administrative detention. According to the judicial record, at approximately 23:30 on 4 January 2022, Mr A. participated in an unauthorised public assembly at Abai Square on N. Nazarbayev Avenue. The court found that Mr A., acting as part of a group of individuals, utilised a loudhailer during a gathering convened without the requisite prior notification or authorisation from the local executive body. It was further held that Mr A. persisted in their participation notwithstanding a formal direction to disperse issued by a representative of the local executive authority. Consequently, the court found that Mr A. had acted in contravention of the statutory requirements governing the conduct of peaceful assemblies, rallies, and other public events.
On 6 July 2021, the Kostanay Specialised Administrative Offences Court held that Ms S. had committed an offence under Article 488(6) of the Code of Administrative Offences and imposed a sanction of one day of administrative detention.
According to the case record, on 6 July 2021 at 12:00, Ms S. participated in an assembly in Victory Park, Kostanay. The court determined that the gathering had been conducted without prior notification to the local executive authority or the submission of an application for approval, in contravention of Article 4(2) of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 25 May 2020 (No. 333-VI) ‘On the Procedure for Organising and Holding Peaceful Assemblies in the Republic of Kazakhstan’.
On 29 February 2020, the Uralsk Specialised Administrative Court adjudicated that Mr A. had contravened Article 488(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences. The court subsequently imposed a sanction of seven days’ administrative detention. The case record indicates that on 26 February 2020, at approximately 10:00, Mr A. conducted an unauthorised single-person picket outside the checkpoint entrance to the West Kazakhstan Regional Police Department, located at 45 Pugachev Street. The defendant displayed a placard bearing the inscription, “Полиция адам өлтірді” (“The police killed a person”). In its judgment, the court held that the defendant had failed to comply with a formal directive issued by a representative of the local executive authority to cease the illegal activity, thereby violating the statutory requirements governing the conduct of peaceful public events.
On 13 December 2019, the Uralsk Specialised Administrative Court adjudicated that Mr Ye. had contravened Article 488(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, subsequently imposing a sanction of five days’ administrative detention. According to the case record, on 29 November 2018 at approximately 11:00, the defendant conducted an authorised single-person picket on the steps of the West Kazakhstan Regional Court. The defendant displayed a placard bearing the inscription, “I demand a fair trial”. The court concluded that Mr Ye. had failed to comply with a formal directive from local executive authorities to cease the illegal activity, thereby violating the statutory requirements governing the conduct of peaceful public events.
On 1 June 2018, the Uralsk Specialised Administrative Court adjudicated that Mr A. had contravened Article 488(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, subsequently imposing a sanction of five days’ administrative detention. According to the case materials, on 31 May 2018 at approximately 10:50, Mr A. participated together with other individuals in an unauthorised rally in Kirov Park in Uralsk. The court held that this gathering was conducted without the requisite prior authorisation from the local executive body. Consequently, the court reached a judicial determination that the defendant’s conduct constituted a violation of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan ‘On the Procedure for Organising and Holding Peaceful Assemblies in the Republic of Kazakhstan’.
On 5 June 2018, the same court adjudicated that Mr Ye. had contravened Article 488(1) of the Code of Administrative Offence, subsequently imposing a sanction of five days’ administrative detention. The case record indicates that on 31 May 2018, at approximately 11:30, the defendant participated in the same unauthorised assembly alongside other individuals in Kirov Park. The court held that this assembly was conducted without the requisite prior authorisation from the local executive authority, as mandated by the prevailing regulatory framework.
Article 405 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes criminal liability for the organisation of, or participation in, the activities of a public or religious association or other organisation following a judicial decree proscribing the organisation or ordering its liquidation on the grounds of extremism or terrorism. ^[18]
On 7 August 2019, the Ili District Court (Almaty Region) convicted Mr M. of an offence under Article 405(2) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The court imposed a sentence of one year’s restriction of liberty.
The case studies analysed herein demonstrate a series of systemic characteristics:
1) the activities in question were exclusively peaceful in nature, involving neither the incitement of violence nor any demonstrable threat to national security or public order; it is observed that these prosecutions were initiated within a highly-charged political context;
2) the judiciary appears to operate on a de facto presumption of guilt, according dispositive weight to prosecution and police records; there is a documented absence of independent judicial scrutiny regarding the necessity and proportionality of State interference with fundamental rights;
3) in practice, the fundamental right to freedom of peaceful assembly is effectively supplanted by the operation of a permit-based regime; the judiciary consistently proceeds on the presumption that the exercise of this constitutional right is contingent upon the prior authorisation of state authorities;
4) the judiciary and enforcement authorities consistently conflate solitary, single-person pickets with collective rallies; consequently, individual expressions of opinion are as routinely reclassified as an unauthorised large-scale assembly;
5) the judiciary consistently adopts a mechanistic approach to the adjudication of these proceedings; acts such as physical presence at a location, the display of placards, the dissemination of content via digital platforms, including Telegram and YouTube, the utilisation of acoustic amplification devices are treated as prima facie evidence sufficient to establish the actus reus of the offence; such determinations are typically reached without a substantive judicial analysis of material harm, public endangerment, demonstrable social impact, or the requisite degree of individual culpability;
6) the imposition of administrative detention frequently occurs without due consideration of lesser restrictive measures, thereby failing the requisite test of proportionality; furthermore, the judiciary appears to treat prior administrative liability as an aggravating factor during sentencing, rather than a constituent element of the offence itself;
7) in criminal proceedings, the judiciary de facto permits expert conclusions to usurp the judicial function, effectively abdicating the substantive determination of the corpus delicti to external specialists.

5. Implications for Access to Justice and the Maintenance of Public Confidence

A comprehensive analysis of judicial practice under Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Article 405 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan facilitates the following findings regarding the systemic barriers to access to justice and the subsequent erosion of public confidence in the judiciary.

5.1. Systemic Impediments to the Effective Access to Justice
Strict adherence to procedural formality often serves as a mere performative veneer — a statutory ritual designed to lend an appearance of legitimacy to proceedings. Such a facade does not, in itself, secure the substantive realisation of the right to a fair trial. In a significant majority of the analysed administrative proceedings, the following departures from the Rule of Law were observed:

• the judiciary consistently accorded dispositive weight to police reports and protocols, failing to subject this evidence to any meaningful adversarial scrutiny;
• there was a discernible absence of a necessity and proportionality assessment of state interference with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly;
• in the imposition of sanctions, particularly administrative detention, the judiciary failed to consider mitigating factors or the availability of less intrusive measures, contrary to the principle of the least restrictive alternative;
• hearings were conducted in an expedited, summary manner; this compression of the judicial process fundamentally undermined the equality of arms and precluded the defendant’s ability to prepare a substantive and effective defence.

This systemic practice undermines the efficacy of the judicial guarantees enshrined in Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Furthermore, such procedural deficiencies constitute a failure to give effect to the right to a fair trial as mandated by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There is a documented systemic over-reliance on remand in custody as a coercive measure at the pre-trial investigative stage in criminal cases. This excessive recourse to detention fundamentally obstructs the defendant’s ability to engage in unrestricted consultation with legal counsel and materially impedes the effective gathering of exculpatory evidence. Such conditions preclude the development of a robust defence strategy.

5.2. The Transition Toward a De Facto Authorisation Regime

          Judicial practice concerning peaceful assembly reveals a systematic shift from a notification-based framework to a de facto authorisation regime. The exercise of this fundamental constitutional right has been rendered contingent upon local executive approval.  Furthermore, the judiciary has adopted an overly expansive interpretation of the Code of Administrative Offences by conflating solitary, single-person pickets and individual expressions of opinion with mass public events. This undue widening of the regulatory net results in a disproportionate restriction of the right to peaceful assembly, as enshrined in both the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the state’s international treaty obligations.

          5.3. Erosion of Public Confidence in Judicial Independence and Institutional Legitimacy

The systematic adoption of a purely formalistic approach of judicial reasoning, coupled with a failure to evaluate the material social harm or the broader context of peaceful assembly, has profoundly undermined the perceived impartiality of the judiciary. The courts are increasingly viewed as instruments of the executive that fail to perform the essential proportionality balancing exercise between public order and fundamental human rights.

This crisis of legitimacy is further exacerbated by several systemic procedural deficits:

• the conduct of hearings in camera (closed to the public);
• the restricted access to case materials;
• the application of arbitrary and selective criteria in analogous cases;
• the absence of robust mechanisms for the independent review of police misconduct and law enforcement actions.

Collectively, these factors contribute to a pervasive public perception of insufficient judicial independence. This erosion of independence fundamentally compromises the legal and moral authority of judicial determinations.

5.4. Longitudinal Institutional Implications

The systemic erosion of judicial independence and institutional legitimacy precipitates several profound legal and constitutional consequences:
— a demonstrable increase in applications to international treaty bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Committee in search for international adjudication;
          — heightened social polarisation;
— a demonstrable diminution in the recourse to domestic judicial remedies, reflecting a pervasive chilling effect on the vindication of fundamental civic rights;
          — the proliferation of legal nihilism.

6. Principal Findings and Proposed Redress

6.1. Summary of Findings

• while the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and ratified international treaties formally guarantee fundamental rights and freedoms, the judiciary consistently adopts a mechanistic and formalistic approach to the administration of justice in cases involving civil and political rights;
• the application of Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences (concerning the organisation and conduct of peaceful assemblies) and Article 405 of the Criminal Code (concerning the activities of prohibited organisations) is frequently characterised by an overly expansive judicial interpretation and a systemic failure to conduct a rigorous proportionality assessment regarding state interference with fundamental human rights;
• judicial determinations frequently reflect a systemic alignment with the prosecution and a failure to uphold the core tenets of adversarial proceedings and the equality of arms;
• the prevailing judicial practice has precipitated a significant diminution in public confidence and a pervasive perception of judicial subordination to the executive.

  2. Proposed Redress

Recommendations for Legislative Reform:

• Amend the Law on Peaceful Assembly to ensure full alignment with international human rights standards, supplanting the current de facto authorisation framework with a genuine notification-based regime for the exercise of fundamental liberties;
• Revise the statutory construction of Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences and Article 405 of the Criminal Code to provide exhaustively defined criteria, thereby precluding the current practice of overly expansive judicial interpretation and ensuring compliance with the principle of legal certainty;
• Codify an explicit mandatory requirement for the judiciary to conduct a rigorous necessity and proportionality assessment in all proceedings involving the restriction of fundamental rights.

Judicial Practice and Standards of Evidence:

• Introduce a statutory requirement for the judiciary to provide mandatory, reasoned justifications for the necessity of administrative or pre-trial detention, affirming its application strictly as a measure of last resort;
• Establish and enforce robust judicial standards for the full and adversarial scrutiny of the admissibility and reliability of all evidence adduced by law enforcement agencies;
• Proscribe the automatic acceptance of police reports and protocols as prima facie evidence without their critical assessment by the court.

Institutional Safeguards:

• Enhance guarantees of judicial independence, including the ratification of transparent procedures for judicial appointment and promotion;
• Enact measures to significantly increase the transparency of judicial proceedings, ensuring the openness of all hearings, alongside unrestricted public access to judicial decisions and relevant case materials, in accordance with the principle of open justice;
• Create and empower an independent and robust mechanism for the effective investigation of complaints against law enforcement authorities.

Educational and Methodological Measures:

• Develop and implement a compulsory, comprehensive judicial training programme focused on the direct application of international human rights instruments;
• Integrate international human rights jurisprudence as authoritative interpretative guidance for the national judiciary when applying and construing domestic legislation;
• Cultivate a sustainable judicial practice that is demonstrably grounded in the robust protection of fundamental human rights and adheres strictly to the Rule of Law.

^[1] Всеобщая декларация прав человека, принята резолюцией 217 А (III) Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН от 10 декабря 1948 г. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/O4800000001

^[2] Международный пакт о гражданских и политических правах, совершенный в Нью-Йорке 16 декабря 1966 г. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z050000091_

^[3] Конституция Республики Казахстан. Принята на республиканском референдуме 30 августа 1995 г. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K950001000_

^[4] Конституция Республики Казахстан. Принята на республиканском референдуме 30 августа 1995 г. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K950001000_

^[5] Конституция Республики Казахстан. Принята на республиканском референдуме 30 августа 1995 г. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K950001000_

^[6] Кодекс РК от 5 июля 2014 г. № 235-V ЗРК «Об административных правонарушениях» https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1400000235#z25

^[7] Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс РК от 4 июля 2014 г. № 231-V ЗРК https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1400000231#z89 

^[8] Конституционный закон РК от 25 декабря 2000 г. № 132 «О судебной системе и статусе судей Республики Казахстан» https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z000000132_

^[9] Закон РК от 4 декабря 2015 г. № 436-V ЗРК «О Высшем Судебном Совете Республики Казахстан» https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z1500000436

^[10] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/kazakhstan?utm_source=chatgpt.com

^[11]https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/kazakhstan?utm_source=chatgpt.com

^[12] https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/c/6/590375_0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

^[13] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2025/country-chapters/kazakhstan?utm_source=chatgpt.com

^[14]https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/europe-and-central-asia/eastern-europe-and-central-asia/kazakhstan/report-kazakhstan/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

^[15] https://2021-2025.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/kazakhstan/?safe=1

^[16]  Кодекс РК от 5 июля 2014 г. № 235-V ЗРК «Об административных правонарушениях» https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1400000235

^[17] Закон РК от 25 мая 2020 г. № 333-VІ ЗРК «О порядке организации и проведения мирных собраний в Республике Казахстан» https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2000000333

^[18]  Уголовный Кодекс РК от 3 июля 2014 г. № 226-V ЗРК https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1400000226