The Constitutional Court pointed out the need to revise the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the length of detention during the case review stage

Теlegram CС - https://t.me/consot_kz  

 

The Constitutional Court considered a citizen's appeal to review the constitutionality of part six of Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP).

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 taken into account by the court when determining the sentence.

History of circulation

The reason for the citizen's appeal to the Constitutional Court was that, after the completion of the pre-trial investigation, he remained in custody for more than a year, despite his refusal to familiarize himself with the materials of the criminal case. However, during this period, his defense counsel and other participants in the criminal proceedings continued to review the case materials. In this regard, according to the applicant, this provision violates his constitutional right to personal freedom.

Conclusions of the Constitutional Court

Based on the results of its review of the appeal, the Constitutional Court indicated that the detention of the 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. 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 norm 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.

Along with 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 period of detention of a suspect is interrupted for the period during which all participants in the criminal proceedings familiarize themselves with the materials of the criminal case, regardless of the time taken by the suspect and his defense counsel to familiarize themselves with them.

The Constitutional Court pointed out the insufficient legal consistency of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing 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.

Constitutional Court ruling

Based on the results of its review of the appeal, the Constitutional Court found that part six of Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was consistent with the Constitution. However, taking into account the legal conclusions set out in its final decision, the Constitutional Court recommended that the Government consider further improvements to criminal procedure legislation.

The full text of the Constitutional Court's ruling can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/ksrk/documents/details/872421?lang=en