Kazakhstan's Constitutional Court has addressed whether a suspect may be detained again after a period of custody has expired, clarifying the conditions under which such a measure may be applied in the same case, infohub.kz reports.
According to the court's Telegram channel, it received a request to review Articles 128 and 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which govern the grounds and procedure for detaining a person suspected of a criminal offense, for compliance with the Constitution.
"The applicant challenged the possibility of re-detaining a person suspected of the same crime after an earlier court-authorized period of custody had expired. The court had previously refused to extend that period because the investigator missed the statutory deadline for filing the relevant request. In the applicant's view, re-detention without new factual circumstances violates constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and inviolability," the court said.
The Constitutional Court stressed that detention and custody are permitted only on lawful grounds and subject to procedural safeguards. Holding a person in custody beyond a court-authorized period without a corresponding court decision is impermissible.
At the same time, according to the court, criminal procedure law distinguishes between the legal consequences of a court's refusal to authorize custody and the release of a person after the established period expires. "In the first case, re-application of a preventive measure is permitted if new circumstances exist. The requirements to establish such circumstances and to credit time previously spent in detention and custody are intended to prevent unjustified and disproportionate restrictions on freedom. However, the arguments in the request amounted to disagreement with the investigating judge's assessment of the circumstances of the re-detention and with the court decisions adopted," the court added.
In this regard, the Constitutional Court pointed to the obligation of prosecutors and courts to ensure that the factual circumstances of a criminal case are examined and legally assessed, that the reasonableness of suspicion is verified, and that court decisions are reviewed where legal inconsistencies are established.