On July 18, 2026, ten years passed since the crime that went down in history as the case of the so-called "Almaty shooter," whose hands claimed the lives of ten people.

On November 2, 2016, the Specialized Inter-District Criminal Court of Almaty delivered its verdict – Ruslan Kulekbayev was found guilty of committing a terrorist act and sentenced to death. However, due to the moratorium in place, the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment, which he is now serving in the "Black Berkut" special prison. Five of his accomplices, who had participated in his earlier offenses, were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.

Ruslan Kulekbayev went down in Kazakhstan's history as one of its most brutal terrorists, having carried out a series of attacks on law enforcement agencies in Almaty within mere hours, claiming the lives of ten people, including two civilians. He was not just an ordinary criminal – it was religious fanaticism that drove him to his bloody crimes.

Kulekbayev was born in 1990 in the Kyzylorda region. Until 2016, his biography was typical of a repeat offender: in 2010 and 2012, he was twice prosecuted for armed robbery and illegal weapons possession. He spent a total of nearly three years in correctional facilities during that period.

But prison deformed his consciousness, which ultimately determined his subsequent fate. While in his cell, Kulekbayev gravitated toward the Salafists, and his criminal recidivism transformed into religious radicalism. During his time in the colony, he received 14 disciplinary sanctions for insubordination toward staff and violations of the detention regime.

After his release in 2016, he moved to Almaty. He was unemployed and took up armed robberies, preying mainly on women and lone passersby; the investigation established his involvement in at least four armed robberies and two thefts. He got away with all of them.

THE BLOODY CHAIN OF MURDERS

The series of killings began on the night of July 17, 2016. The chain of crimes committed by Kulekbayev unfolded within a matter of hours. The first shot was fired at a woman whom, in his own words, he "punished" for engaging in prostitution during the holy month of Ramadan.

However, this was merely a prologue. On the morning of the following day, armed with a hunting rifle and a pistol, he headed to the Almalinsky District Police Department building, where he opened fire on police officers, seized their weapons, and continued his terror near the buildings of other law enforcement and financial agencies.

The investigation would later establish that he entered the Almalinsky District Police Station at 10:54 AM. Within minutes, he shot several employees, including a recently retired driver. Having seized an assault rifle, the perpetrator went outside and continued firing. He pulled the trigger whenever he saw someone in uniform.

He then, threatening people with his weapon, began stopping cars and forcing drivers to take him around the city, periodically opening fire on pedestrians and patrol officers. At 11:19 AM, Kulekbayev was apprehended near the "Kazakhconcert" building, but by then he had already killed ten people: eight law enforcement officers and two civilians.

THE MOTIVES FOR THE ATROCITY

Investigating the true reasons for his crime, the inquiry and the court identified the primary motives – during interrogations, Kulekbayev openly stated that his goal was a desire "to take revenge on the police for two years in prison." He knew he would be caught and decided to "go out in style," taking as many "enemies" with him as possible. This was a thirst for revenge, a typical trait of a repeat offender who had failed to accept his punishment.

Personal resentment became intertwined in him with radical ideology. In his testimony, Kulekbayev claimed that he killed law enforcement officers because they "persecute Muslim brothers." In his final statement in court, he showed no remorse, stating that his victims had "strayed from the right path." His appointed lawyer reported that Kulekbayev refused to appeal the death sentence, as it contradicted his Salafist beliefs. In his understanding, Salafism justified violence against the authorities and those who did not share his views.

In the wake of the terrorist attack, an emergency meeting of the Security Council was convened, where the incident was officially classified as an act of terrorism, in which the perpetrator's actions were directed not merely against specific individuals: he used weapons against people vested with state functions, sowing chaos on the streets of the country's largest city. A "red" level of terrorist threat was declared in the city.

Due to the aggressive behavior of the accused in this monstrous crime and the danger he posed, the trial was held on the premises of the pre-trial detention center. Even then, Kulekbayev behaved defiantly: he refused to stand when addressed by the judge and ignored reprimands.

The court found him guilty on multiple serious charges: terrorist act, murder of two or more persons, armed robbery, carjacking, and illegal arms trafficking. The final verdict caused widespread resonance, as it was the first death sentence handed down in Kazakhstan in the past 10 years. The relatives of the deceased welcomed this decision, stating that it would serve as a lesson to others.

Kulekbayev's story will be remembered as one of the most brutal terrorist acts, serving as a tragic example of how a repeat offender with a criminal past finds justification for his hatred in radical Islam. Behind the outward religious rhetoric lay a banal thirst for revenge for his imprisonment, compounded by a fanatical worldview.

He was a bitter, embittered man whose faith became merely a tool for committing murder. His case serves as yet another reminder of how dangerous the alliance between criminal psychology and extremist ideology can be.

Today, Kulekbayev is serving his sentence in solitary confinement. It is said that he has cut off contact with his family and friends.

KILLED DURING APPREHENSION

For the residents of Almaty, this tragedy came as a shock. The green, leafy city, where peace and tranquility had reigned, was unprepared for such a turn of events. The bloody massacre that cut short people's lives dealt a heavy blow to families – those who perished on that fateful day were someone's sons, the breadwinners of their families. They left behind parents and wives driven mad by grief, and children who learned of orphanhood far too early. Even now, ten years later, their colleagues find it painful to speak of them in the past tense.

During the apprehension of the criminal, the true act of heroism that will forever remain an example was the courage displayed by Police Sergeant Ayan Galiyev of the 2nd Battalion of the Almaty City Specialized Security Service. He showed bravery in such a hopeless situation, during a sudden firefight, face to face with a frenzied criminal.

Capturing an armed bandit was no easy task. During the fierce shootout, where the struggle was a matter of life and death, police officers sought to neutralize the armed bandit while shielding civilians from his bullets. Describing this moment, our colleague from the newspaper Vremya wrote at the time: "The criminal ran toward the Department of State Revenues. In the parking lot, he spotted a Mercedes and fired two shots at it, hoping to intimidate the driver and seize his vehicle.

"But this was where the professionalism of patrol officer Sergeant Ayan Galiyev came into play. He opened fire on the fleeing criminal and wounded him twice: in the leg and in the ribs on the right side, but in return received several bullets that proved fatal to him. The patrol officer's partner, Sergeant Kartbayev, managed to overpower Kulekbayev and handcuff him. The time of apprehension – 11:19 AM."

KEEPING IN SIGHT

The tragedy of July 18, 2016, when a criminal who already had two prior convictions for robbery and illegal weapons possession committed a new, even more brutal crime, posed a painful question to society, the law enforcement system, and the post-penitentiary control authorities: how could it have happened that a dangerous repeat offender ended up outside any form of supervision?

The answer, it seems, lies in the imperfections of the legislative framework and the organizational gaps that existed at the time of Kulekbayev's release. He freely changed his place of residence. Despite knowing about his potential danger and his affiliation with a radical movement – which had surely manifested itself both in the colony and in daily life – he was not placed under post-penitentiary probation for such categories of individuals.

Serving his sentence, as it turned out, opened the door to a free life for him. Perhaps this can be explained by the alleged absence at that time of obvious signs of radicalization in his behavior. It is also understandable that the system lacks the resources for total control over every released individual. This is precisely what allowed the repeat offender to move around the country unchecked and prepare for a new, even more heinous crime.

There are many such cases. This also applies to released rapists and pedophiles who return to their old ways.

Today, in order to revise approaches to monitoring individuals released from places of detention, the legislation has introduced administrative supervision as a stricter form which, unlike probation, is a compulsory measure imposed by a court after the serving of a sentence on persons convicted of grave and particularly grave crimes, for a period of three to eight years.

This supervision entails significant restrictions: a ban on leaving home at certain times, visiting specific places, and traveling outside the district without police permission.

Perhaps the time has come to consider extending administrative supervision to all released individuals without exception – especially those convicted of grave crimes – making it mandatory for them to use electronic tracking devices (bracelets) to monitor the whereabouts of those under supervision in real time. Alternatively, probation could be applied with mandatory regular monitoring of their location or occupation.

In any case, the story of Kulekbayev is a tragic illustration of the fact that releasing a dangerous criminal without subsequent control can lead to a new wave of violence. It is precisely such crimes that should serve as an impetus for further reform of Kazakhstan's control system, shifting the focus from voluntary and limited probation to compulsory and strict administrative supervision.

History cannot be undone. The dead cannot be brought back. But the future must be safeguarded.

The efforts of the relevant services, as well as the provisions of legislation, must be directed toward ensuring that such a loophole – the one that allowed Kulekbayev to remain outside control – does not recur. After serving their sentence, repeat offenders must not vanish from the state's field of vision; they must remain under observation until their safety for society has been definitively proven.

By Akmaral ABDULOVA

Zanmedia.kz