The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority, playing a key role in ensuring justice in the country.
Like any other judicial body, the Supreme Court strives for uniformity in the application of laws.
However, there are cases where decisions on similar matters differ, and then perfectly reasonable questions arise regarding the consistency and soundness of such decisions.
The FBRC editorial board has obtained several cases in which, despite identical expert examinations, the Supreme Court reached different conclusions. It is these cases that will be discussed today.
In June 2023, the Atyrau City Court considered a case concerning the establishment of paternity and the subsequent inheritance of property.
According to the case materials, following the death of the father, his only legitimate daughter inherited the estate. However, a person soon appeared who claimed to be the deceased's illegitimate son and therefore sought a share of the inheritance.
The Institute of Forensic Science in Atyrau conducted a molecular genetic study to establish the relationship between the potential heir and the deceased.
To conduct the examination, it was decided to take biological samples from the alleged brother and sister, as well as their mothers, since no male-line relatives of the deceased remained alive.
The study indicated that the probability of a true biological relationship between the potential heirs was 99.9%.
Remarkably, however, during the court proceedings, the chief expert was unable to provide a definitive answer to the question of whether the claimant was the son of the deceased.
In May, the examination was ordered to be carried out by the Institute of Forensic Science in Almaty, but the case was soon returned due to the lack of biological samples from the father.
In the end, the court, presided over by Judge G. A. Kazhgalieva, dismissed the claimant's application for the status of the deceased's son, justifying the decision on the grounds that an accurate genetic study was impossible without samples from the alleged father.
In September 2023, the claimant appealed to the Atyrau Regional Court.
The panel, consisting of Chairperson M.R. Chernyakhovskaya and Judges B.V. Zhumabaeva and B.B. Nurzhanova, then overturned the city court's decision and recognised the claimant as the son of the deceased, based on the results of the aforementioned expert examination.
In turn, the deceased's daughter attempted to challenge the results of the examination in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, but the court refused to hear the case, considering the regional court's decision to be sound.
It would seem that this should have been the end of the story: the city court had issued a ruling. And despite the fact that it raised some questions, it was upheld by the regional and supreme courts.
However, it turned out that in February 2023, the Supreme Court considered a similar case concerning the establishment of paternity, which used the same type of examination – the determination of family relationships between alleged sisters.
And although the examination could indicate the existence of a family relationship, it could not, nevertheless, answer the key question of who the father is, due to the lack of biological samples from the deceased, just as in the previous case.
The judicial panel of the Supreme Court established that the expert conclusion could not hold evidentiary value, as it did not contain reasoned findings on the specific question.
Given that the genetic study is the primary evidence in both cases, the question arises as to why the results of two identical expert examinations were interpreted differently.
If, in the first case, establishing the family relationship between the heirs was deemed sufficient to confirm paternity, then in the second case, the study conducted without the biological material of the alleged father was deemed unreliable. But why?
The FBRC editorial board has sent official enquiries to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and the Prosecutor General's Office, requesting a comment on the situation that has arisen.