Kazakhstan debates new Criminal Code after 105 amendments in 10 years

September 25, 2026 at 12:00 PM2 min

This digest was compiled by AI from multiple sources — links to the originals are below.

Kazakhstan's current Criminal Code, adopted in 2014, has been amended 105 times over the past decade, prompting debate over whether a new code is needed. Honorary lawyer Serik Temirbulatov argues that the question of a new code cannot be answered without first determining whether the underlying concept of criminal law has changed. The discussion unfolds even as the Constitutional Court has stressed that criminal law norms must be clear and unambiguous.

Key Facts

Kazakhstan's current Criminal Code was adopted in 2014 and has been amended 105 times over the past decade.
Article 3 of the Criminal Code alone has been amended 30 times.
Honorary lawyer Serik Temirbulatov distinguishes three levels of change: modernization, recodification, and a full new Criminal Code.
Supporters of a new code argue for abandoning the category of criminal offenses and moving to a different system of crime classification.
The Constitutional Court has emphasized that criminal law norms must be clear and not allow ambiguous interpretation.

The Amendment Record

Kazakhstan's Criminal Code, adopted in 2014, has been amended 105 times over the past decade. Article 3 alone has been changed 30 times. The frequency of amendments has led to public discussion about whether the code should be rewritten.

Temirbulatov's Framework

Honorary lawyer Serik Temirbulatov argues that the debate should not start with which articles to add or remove. He says the first question is whether the concept of criminal law in Kazakhstan has fundamentally changed. Temirbulatov distinguishes three levels of change: modernization, recodification, and a full new Criminal Code. A full new code would require a change in the concept of criminal law, not just a revision of individual norms.

Constitutional Court Position

The Constitutional Court has stressed that criminal law norms must be clear and not allow ambiguous interpretation. Legal certainty is important for constitutional rights and freedoms. Temirbulatov notes that a new Constitution could require a revision of legislation, but would not automatically invalidate the current code.