CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. INFORMATION LAW AND SECURITY

A Comparative Legal Study of The Institution of Liability for Procedural Violations in the Criminal Proceedings of Kazakhstan and China

Abstract

This article is devoted to a comparative legal analysis of the institution of liability for violations of criminal procedural legislation in the Republic of Kazakhstan and the People’s Republic of China. The relevance of the study is обусловлена the pivotal role of procedural form in ensuring the legality of criminal proceedings and the protection of individual rights. The author examines the theoretical foundations of criminal procedural law in both countries, proposes a classification of procedural violations, and identifies their principal types, including unlawful detention, the use of torture, fabrication of evidence, and restrictions on access to legal counsel.

The paper analyzes the normative models of liability: in Kazakhstan, a multi-level system is established, encompassing criminal, disciplinary, and civil liability, with prosecutorial supervision and judicial control playing a central role. The examination of the Chinese model demonstrates that, despite the formal existence of similar criminal prohibitions, the actual imposition of liability remains extremely limited due to the predominance of party-disciplinary mechanisms, the absence of independent judicial oversight, and the prioritization of state interests over individual rights.

The comparative analysis shows that the differences in approaches are determined not by features of legal drafting technique, but by fundamental divergences in the political and legal systems. Kazakhstan demonstrates movement toward the standards of the rule of law and international norms, whereas the Chinese system maintains the subordination of criminal procedure to the objectives of party-state governance. The conclusion formulates recommendations aimed at improving accountability mechanisms in both countries, ensuring a balanced relationship between public interests and the protection of individual rights.