A convicted Kazakh citizen's complaint about how time spent in pre-trial detention is credited has prompted clarification from the Constitutional Court: the applicant argued that current rules place people who have committed crimes of comparable gravity in an unequal position, infohub.kz reports.
According to NUR.KZ, citing the Constitutional Court's press service, the court received a request to review the constitutionality of Point 2 of Part Five of Article 46, as well as Articles 48 and 62 of the Criminal Code. These provisions govern the determination of the type of penal institution, the confiscation of property, and the crediting of time spent in pre-trial detention toward a sentence.
The appeal was filed by a Kazakh citizen convicted of embezzlement or misappropriation of entrusted property and fraud. He had previously been sentenced to imprisonment in a medium-security facility.
"In the applicant's view, the legislation provides for differences in the conditions of serving a sentence and in the procedure for crediting time spent in pre-trial detention for persons who have committed crimes of comparable gravity, which, in his opinion, violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law and the courts," the statement said.
The court noted that the Criminal Code defines the types of punishments, the conditions for serving them, and the rules for calculating terms and crediting time spent in pre-trial detention. These rules are applied taking into account the categories of crimes and types of penal institutions established by law.
Under Article 62 of the Criminal Code, time spent in pre-trial detention before a verdict enters into legal force is credited toward a prison sentence depending on the type of facility: one day for one day in maximum-, special- and full-security facilities; one day for one and a half days in medium-security facilities; and one day for two days in minimum-security facilities.
"Determining the types of penal institutions and establishing the procedure for calculating sentence terms and crediting time spent in pre-trial detention fall within the competence of the legislator. The relevant rules are set out in criminal legislation," the court said.
It was noted that, regarding the challenge to Article 48 of the Criminal Code, which governs the confiscation of property, the applicant did not provide legal arguments substantiating its inconsistency with the Constitution and did not explain how this provision was applied in his case. Therefore, the article was not assessed by the Constitutional Court.