The decisions of the Fourth Congress of Judges, held on June 3, 2005, in Astana, were aimed at achieving international standards of the administration of justice.

The judicial community faced tasks of historic importance – to form an objective and impartial court, as well as to increase judges' accountability to society.

One of the practical results of implementing the instructions given at this congress was the introduction of the institution of private bailiffs as an alternative means of protecting the rights of citizens and organizations.

All these pressing issues were discussed by the head of state and the heads of central government bodies who took part in the forum.

The congress summarized the work of the judiciary in implementing the plans outlined at the previous congress, discussed the results of judicial reform, and identified its new priority areas.

The congress assessed the achievements of the judicial system and set specific tasks concerning improving the quality of courts' work, optimizing and simplifying judicial proceedings by maximally reducing the number of supervisory instances, tightening the requirements for candidates for judges, and enhancing the professionalism of judges.

It was noted that a number of measures had been carried out to develop constructive proposals for improving the justice system, genuinely raising the legal and social status of judges, and further strengthening and developing the judicial community.

A substantive conversation took place regarding other pressing topics on the agenda. Delegates and speakers shared their opinions on the place and role of the public association of judges in implementing judicial and legal reform and improving legislation, emphasizing problems related to compliance with the norms of judicial ethics and the prevention of corruption violations within the judicial community.

Particular attention was paid to issues of professional training of judges, ensuring their social guarantees, and the material and technical support of courts.

This made it possible to introduce into legislation norms establishing the procedure for selecting candidates strictly on a competitive basis, as well as their completion of mandatory internships. Thereby, the necessary legal foundation was created for strengthening the human resources potential of the judicial system, which was of the utmost importance in advancing the planned reforms.

The task of creating a working and well-functioning system of professional education for judicial personnel dictated the need to transform the Judicial Academy in 2005 into the Institute of Justice of the Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Each congress yields tangible results. And this forum was no exception, taking real steps toward achieving stable judicial practice. Thus, the result of implementing the tasks in terms of improving procedural legislation was the adoption in December 2005 of the law on the delimitation of jurisdiction, aimed at simplifying judicial proceedings, strengthening the role of local courts, and reducing supervisory instances.

The jurisdiction of criminal cases by the Supreme Court as a court of first instance was eliminated. The vector of reforms made it possible to reduce in regional courts the number of cases subject to consideration as a court of first instance, which were transferred to the competence of district courts.

All these measures were aimed at optimizing judicial proceedings, which created favorable conditions for participants in the process, contributing to the maximum simplification and acceleration of the procedure for the passage and resolution of court cases.

A turning point in judicial and legal reform was the introduction, as of January 1, 2007, into the legal framework of Kazakhstan of the institution of trial by jury. These innovations received legislative enshrinement in the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Jurors" and "On Introducing Additions and Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts on Issues of Introducing Criminal Proceedings with the Participation of Jurors."

The participation of representatives of the general public in the administration of justice also contributed to increasing citizens' trust in court decisions and made them more democratic and humane.

The draft Law "On the Authorization of Arrest by Courts," developed by the Supreme Court, provided for granting courts the function of issuing sanctions for the arrest of persons suspected of committing crimes.

The establishment, as of August 2008, of judicial control over the selection of arrest and the extension of its term provided a real opportunity to identify and eliminate investigative errors at the early stages of judicial proceedings.

How did this innovation affect practice? The transfer of the decision on arrest and the extension of the term of detention into the hands of the court became an important guarantee of individual rights and improved the quality of pre-trial proceedings by ensuring an independent review of the grounds for arrest.

If previously the decision effectively remained within the system of criminal prosecution, now the request of the investigator and prosecutor is reviewed by a judge who has no interest in the outcome of the case. He assesses whether there are grounds and evidence, as well as the necessity of this particular measure of restraint. Thanks to this, investigative errors can be identified and eliminated at the early stages. The court sees the materials on which the request is based, so shortcomings are detected immediately – for example, a weak evidentiary base, procedural violations, or incorrect qualification of the act.

These serious shortcomings could now be corrected before they led to an unfounded accusation or to the reversal of a verdict. As a result, the number of unfounded arrests decreases: courts deny sanctions where the grounds are insufficient and more often choose milder measures, including a written undertaking not to leave, bail, or house arrest. Thus, arrest ceases to be a default measure and is applied as an exception.

Another important result is that the protection of the rights and freedoms of the detained person is strengthened. Participating in the court hearing together with a defense lawyer, he can object and present his arguments. And this, in turn, implements the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of the parties already at the pre-trial stage.

Accordingly, this had a positive effect on the growing accountability of investigators and prosecutors. After all, they now had to justify the request before the court, which raised the requirements for the quality of the investigation and discipline. For the bodies of criminal prosecution, restricting freedom without sufficient grounds becomes more risky.

In practice, this innovation contributed to the prevention of violations during detention and custody: the judge directly sees the detained person, so it is easier to identify facts of unlawful pressure, torture, and other violations; control over the terms of detention is also strengthened.

Ultimately, the legal community and the public itself felt this step aimed at increasing trust in justice. Now a decision made by a court was perceived as more fair.

Thus, the introduction of judicial authorization of arrest ceased to be a purely internal decision of the investigative bodies, which brought criminal proceedings closer to international standards of human rights protection. The expediency of arrest had to be proven before an independent court – that was the main point.

The introduction, as of 2009, of cassation proceedings allowed local courts at the regional level to make the final decision themselves, which also contributed to improving the quality of the administration of justice and eliminated delays in the consideration of cases.

Therefore, the Fourth Congress of Judges, held in June 2005, took its special place in achieving international standards of the administration of justice. The open and honest conversation of the delegates and guests invited to the forum set before the judiciary the tasks of increasing judges' accountability to society and the need to form an objective and impartial court.

The Congress of Judges became an important stage in the development of Kazakhstan's judicial system, showing that the judicial authority is ready for an open dialogue with society and recognizes the need for its own renewal. The decisions and tasks set at the congress laid the foundation for subsequent reforms, whose main guideline was named as the objectivity and impartiality of the court, without which citizens' trust in justice is impossible.

The frank discussion of all pressing problems became the basis for practical steps, from strengthening guarantees of individual rights and expanding judicial control to raising the requirements for the professionalism of judges.

Akmaral ABDULOVA