Asian Journal of Criminal Justice and Forensic Studies

The purpose of the study was to identify and investigate gaps in the restorative justice system in Kazakhstan. The methodology of the study was based on a comparative legal analysis of the legislative framework, practices of mediation, probation, and juvenile justice of three countries (Kazakhstan, Japan, and South Korea) using the historical and legal method for investigating traditional institutions of Kazakhstan and content analysis of international and national documents. The findings showed that Kazakhstan’s restorative justice system has significant gaps in the use of pre-trial mediation, specialised programmes for minors, and the integration of public institutions. It was found that as of July 2025, 27,762 people were registered with the probation service in Kazakhstan, which indicates the active use of this institution, but requires strengthening through the involvement of social workers and public initiatives, such as “advisers for social reintegration” in Japan. Policies implemented in Japan and family conferences for minors practised in South Korea offer effective mechanisms for expanding the use of restorative practices. It was established that the institutions of aksakals and biys, which have a historical role in reconciliation, can be integrated into contemporary models, strengthening the legitimacy and cultural acceptability of restorative justice. The conclusions emphasised that Kazakhstan needs to amend its legislation to clearly define the limits of application of reconciliation, and to develop state programmes for training qualified mediators, which will help to reduce recidivism and humanise criminal justice. The practical significance of the results obtained is to provide specific tools for reforming Kazakhstan’s criminal justice system aimed at reducing recidivism, humanising punishments, and improving the effectiveness of social reintegration. These recommendations can be used by the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General’s Office, and local authorities

References