In Kazakhstan’s media space, statements and publications have increasingly appeared in which lawful investigative actions in criminal cases are portrayed as acts of torture. The discussion concerns cases initiated under Article 274 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan - “Dissemination of knowingly false information”, DKNews.kz reports.
The General Prosecutor’s Office describes such claims as false and deliberately misleading, pointing to a conscious substitution of legal concepts. This issue goes far beyond any single criminal case - it directly affects public trust in state institutions and the overall stability of the legal system.
What critics are claiming and where the manipulation lies
In a number of publications and public statements, certain individuals classify the following procedural actions as “torture”:
- summons for questioning;
- the questioning itself;
- the court’s decision to apply a preventive measure in the form of house arrest.
However, all of these measures are explicitly provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and are applied strictly within the framework of the law. These are standard instruments of pre-trial investigation used in any legal system - from Europe to the United States.
This is where the core problem lies: lawful procedural practice is being presented as unlawful violence, creating artificial public outrage.
What constitutes torture under Kazakh law and international standards
Kazakh legislation provides a clear and precise definition of torture. Under Article 146 of the Criminal Code, torture is defined as the intentional use of physical force or psychological pressure by a public official.
This definition fully corresponds to Kazakhstan’s international obligations, including:
- the UN Convention Against Torture;
- the Istanbul Protocol, which is used internationally to document and assess allegations of torture and ill-treatment.
A crucial point must be emphasized: not every restriction of liberty, not every interrogation, and not every preventive measure qualifies as torture. Such qualification requires concrete indicators of unlawful violence or coercion, supported by evidence.
Position of the General Prosecutor’s Office: no violations identified
According to the General Prosecutor’s Office, no instances of torture or other unlawful actions by investigative authorities have been identified in the cases in question to date.
All procedural actions, as stated in the official position, are carried out in full compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code and remain under constant prosecutorial oversight. Moreover, every participant in the process has the right to challenge investigative actions through legally established procedures.
In other words, this is not a closed or arbitrary process, but a formalized procedure with clearly defined legal boundaries.
Why the substitution of concepts is dangerous for society and the economy
At first glance, such statements may appear to be part of a broader public debate. In reality, their consequences are far more significant.
When lawful investigative actions are publicly labeled as “torture”:
- trust in law enforcement and the judiciary is undermined;
- society develops a distorted understanding of law enforcement practices;
- a sense of legal instability emerges;
- the investment and business climate suffers.
For business and investors, predictability of the legal environment is a critical factor. Manipulation of fundamental legal concepts undermines that predictability no less than actual violations of the law.
Deliberate pressure on investigations - legal consequences
The General Prosecutor’s Office emphasizes that the dissemination of knowingly false information constitutes a separate criminal offense. In addition, legislation предусматривает liability for interference, in any form, with the activities of a person conducting a pre-trial investigation.
As legal experts note, freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from responsibility - especially when information is disseminated deliberately and used as a tool to pressure the investigative process.
Previously, statements were also made in the public sphere by representatives of the media. In particular, the editor-in-chief of the KazTAG news agency stated that during investigative procedures he perceived the behavior of a police officer standing near him as exerting psychological pressure. Meanwhile, Murat Adam, a lawyer representing Orda.kz, publicly expressed the view that the application of a preventive measure in the form of house arrest against the editor-in-chief could, in his opinion, be regarded as a form of impermissible pressure.
At the same time, as supervisory authorities have previously noted, such assessments are subjective in nature and are not supported by the legal indicators of torture established under the criminal legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
