The editorial board of FBRK has repeatedly reported on the tragic death of Meruert Aulbayeva, who died due to medical negligence. The pre-trial investigation lasted almost a year, and the main suspect was charged. However, the defence is insisting on a review of the case.
The injured party believes that the defence is deliberately delaying the process, as the statute of limitations for the article is only two years, one of which has already passed.
During the investigation, numerous expert examinations were conducted, which established a link between the patient's death and the actions of the doctors.
At the beginning of November, an employee of the multidisciplinary hospital in Balkhash was brought to criminal responsibility under Article 317, Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. However, the defence is now demanding a repeat expert examination.
Furthermore, according to the deceased's brother, Aitbek Aulbayev, the lawyers are trying to shift the blame onto Meruert herself. The case risks being delayed again for an indefinite period.
The Investigative Court refused the defence's request for a repeat expert examination. Meanwhile, the Karaganda Regional Court upheld the appeal by the defendant's lawyer and ordered a new forensic medical examination.
Earlier, the editorial board of FBRK sent an official request to the Supreme Court asking it to assess the legality of the decision for a repeat examination. However, our appeal was redirected to the same Karaganda Regional Court.
The regional court stated that there had been an incomplete investigation of the circumstances of the case by the investigative bodies, citing the requirements of Article 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the circumstances of the case").
On this basis, the appellate instance of the Karaganda Regional Court reviewed the defendant's lawyer's complaint in a closed session. The case has been returned to the pre-trial investigation stage.
At the same time, according to the injured party, the completeness of the investigation is ensured, as the investigator conducted interrogations of the experts, during which comprehensive answers were obtained to the clarifying questions of the parties.
According to Aitbek Aulbayev, the Karaganda Regional Court, acting as the appellate instance of the investigative court, did not have the right to evaluate the evidence, but by not taking these interrogations into account, the court effectively assessed them as insignificant, essentially ignoring them.
Notably, the court's response states: "by the ruling of the judicial panel for criminal cases of 13 September 2024, the ruling of the investigative court of 6 September 2024 was amended, and the lawyer's complaint was partially satisfied."
In other words, the appeal was considered back in September, although according to police data, the pre-trial investigation was only completed in November. It appears the defence was insisting on a repeat examination even before the investigation concluded.
In addition, it recently became known that the last court hearing took place without the participation of the injured party. As claimed by Aitbek Aulbayev, he did not receive any notification about the hearing and only found out about it after the court proceedings had already taken place.
It is worth noting that conducting a process in the absence of one of the parties is a serious violation of procedural law. Such precedents undermine the fundamental principle of legal proceedings and the hope for a fair trial.
Let us recall that in July 2023, Meruert Aulbayeva repeatedly contacted the Balkhash clinic with health complaints. She was only seen several days later, and the surgery to remove her appendix was performed a week later, even though an ultrasound at the first visit had revealed peritonitis. The patient developed sepsis, and lived with it for three months. On 6 November 2023, the woman passed away.
The case of Meruert Aulbayeva's death raises serious questions about the judicial system. Holding a hearing without notifying the injured party, delaying the process, and ordering a repeat examination despite clear conclusions from previous studies create the impression of deliberate obstruction of justice.
The editorial board of FBRK believes that public oversight of the investigation is necessary to prevent the statute of limitations from expiring and to ensure fair punishment for those responsible for the patient's death.