Sentencing Based on the Aggregate of Judgments

🔷 1. General Characteristics of Article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan regulates the procedure for imposing a final sentence when, after conviction but before fully serving the sentence, a person commits a new criminal offense.

This constitutes a real aggregate of judgments, which requires combining the punishments imposed under each judgment into a single final sentence.

🔹 The difference from Article 58 of the Criminal Code lies in the fact that this provision concerns not crimes examined within a single case, but crimes committed at different times and adjudicated by different judgments.

🔷 2. Legal Nature of the Aggregate of Judgments

An aggregate of judgments presupposes:

· the existence of two or more judgments that have entered into legal force;· the second crime being committed after the first judgment is rendered but before the completion of serving the first sentence.

📌 Related provision: Article 71 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan — provides for crediting time already served toward the final sentence.

🔷 3. Structured Commentary by Parts of the Article

🔹 Part 1. Addition of Punishments

🔸 The main principle is the addition of the unserved part of the previous sentence to the punishment imposed for the new offense:

· Full addition — the entire unserved portion is added to the new sentence;· Partial addition — the court may add only part of it, depending on the nature of the crimes and mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

📌 Judicial practice:Citizen S. was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment, served 1.5 years, and then committed a new crime (robbery). The new case resulted in a sentence of 8 years. The court added the unserved 2.5 years, resulting in a final sentence of 10.5 years.

🔹 Part 2. Restrictions for Non-Custodial Punishments

If both judgments are not related to deprivation of liberty (for example, a fine or community service), the final punishment must not exceed the maximum limits established by the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

🔹 The court may aggregate punishments but may not exceed these limits.

🔹 Part 3. Restrictions in Cases of Imprisonment

🔹 Maximum limits for sentencing based on an aggregate of judgments:

· the general maximum — 25 years;· if an especially serious crime is involved (up to 20 years) — up to 30 years;· if life imprisonment is imposed — the final punishment shall be life imprisonment.

📌 This gradation correlates with Part 2 of Article 46 of the Criminal Code and provisions on maximum terms of punishment in cases of recidivism (Articles 59–60 of the Criminal Code).

Practice:Based on an aggregate of judgments (murder + terrorism), the court imposed a sentence of 28 years. The appellate court upheld the judgment, referring to Part 3 of Article 60, which allows for a sentence of up to 30 years.

🔹 Part 4. Principle of Incremental Punishment

🔹 A key rule: the final punishment may not be less than:

· the punishment imposed under the new judgment;· the unserved part of the previous sentence.

📌 This excludes the possibility of worsening the legal situation through aggregation.For example, if 5 years remained under the previous judgment and 4 years were imposed under the new one, the final sentence must be not less than 5 years.

🔹 Part 5. Additional Punishments

🔹 Applied by analogy with Article 58 of the Criminal Code:

· they may be added to the principal punishment;· the final additional punishment may not exceed the maximum limit established by the General Part (Article 44 of the Criminal Code).

🔷 4. References to Related Articles

🔷 5. International Standards

🔹 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 7 and 14) — requires fairness, individualization, and prohibition of excessive punishment.

🔹 Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Articles 16 and 17 — guarantees individual rights and protection against impermissible punishment.

🔹 Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights:

· Del Río Prada v. Spain (2013): the principle of foreseeability — punishment must be predictable;· Maksymenko v. Ukraine (2012): aggregation of judgments must be properly reasoned and justified by the court.

🔷 6. Conclusion

Article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ensures:

· fairness in sentencing for repeat offenses;· proportionality and consistency in accounting for previously imposed punishments;· safeguards against excessive punishment, including through established upper limits (25–30 years or life imprisonment).

The court is vested with discretionary powers to assess the convicted person’s behavior, the nature of the new offense, and the extent of the unserved portion of the sentence, enabling a fully individualized approach to sentencing.

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases