Information regarding of the Constitutional Court
(No. 74-RD of July 18, 2025)
Теlegram CС - https://t.me/consot_kz
The Constitutional Court considered a citizen's appeal to verify the constitutionality of part six of Article 152 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
According to this provision, the period during which a suspect is held in custody while he and his defense counsel review the materials of the criminal case is not included in the period of detention during the pre-trial investigation, but is considered by the court when imposing a sentence.
The reason for citizen A.'s appeal to the Constitutional Court was that, after the completion of the pre-trial investigation, she refused to familiarize herself with the materials of the criminal case and remained in custody for more than a year. However, during this period, her defense counsel and other participants in the criminal proceedings continued to review the criminal case materials. In this regard, according to citizen A., the aforementioned provision violates her constitutional rights to personal freedom and to the assistance of a lawyer (defense counsel) from the moment of detention, arrest, or indictment.
Based on the results of its review of the appeal, the Constitutional Court ruled that the detention of a suspect during the period when he and his defense counsel are reviewing the materials of the criminal case is authorized and must be extended by the investigating judge in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The detention of the suspect during the period when he and his defense counsel are reviewing the criminal case materials is not included in the period of detention during the pre-trial investigation, but is considered by the court when imposing a sentence. If the suspect and his defense counsel are clearly delaying their review of the case materials, the person conducting the pre-trial investigation has the right to draw up a schedule for reviewing the case materials, to be approved by the prosecutor, setting a specific time limit. At the same time, the lack of coordination between the defense counsel and the suspect in reviewing the case materials is not a basis for declaring the provision unconstitutional, but requires clarification of the opinion of the suspect in custody when the pre-trial investigation body draws up a schedule for reviewing the case materials by the participants in the criminal proceedings, including the suspect's defense counsel.
In addition to the above, the Constitutional Court noted that certain issues related to the detention of suspects had not been sufficiently addressed. For example, the division of the period of detention into separate segments depending on the stage of the criminal proceedings, as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, may in practice negate the statutory time limits for the application of this preventive measure. In law enforcement practice, the calculation of the term of detention of a suspect is interrupted for the period of familiarization of all participants in the criminal proceedings, regardless of the time taken by the suspect and his defense counsel to familiarize themselves with the materials of the criminal case.
The Constitutional Court pointed out the insufficient legal consistency of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulating the procedure for the provision of qualified legal assistance by a lawyer at the final stage of pre-trial proceedings in the event of a disagreement between the lawyer and the suspect.
Thus, considering the legal conclusions set out in the final decision, the Constitutional Court recommended that the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan consider further improving criminal procedure legislation.
Regulatory decision No. 74 adopted by the Constitutional Court entered into force on the date of its adoption, is binding throughout the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, is final, and is not subject to appeal.