Annotation: The key problem of law enforcement in the qualification of violent crimes against personality is the vagueness of the criteria for differentiating torture (infliction of agony) from related offenses: systematic battery (beatings) and intentional infliction of light or medium harm to health. Changes in criminal legislation aimed at decriminilizing or re-criminalizing domestic violence have created legal conflicts. In practice, investigative bodies often substitute the article «Torture», which is difficult to prove, with simpler charges (battery), ignoring the systemic nature of the victim's mental and physical suffering. Conversely, one-time conflicts involving harm to health are erroneously interpreted as torture, leading to a violation of the principle of fairness of punishment. The purpose of the article is a comprehensive legal analysis of the disposition of the article «Torture», identification of the material and psychological criteria for its separation from battery and harm to health, and the development of clear methodical guidelines for judicial and investigative bodies on the qualification of systematic violence. The study utilizes the formal-dogmatic method (analysis of criminal law), the comparativelegal method, a systemic-structural approach, and content analysis of judicial practice materials and the findings of forensic medical and psychological examinations. The study proves that the key marker of torture is not just the frequency of actions, but a specific purpose – the infliction of deep mental suffering and establishing control over the victim. An author's algorithm for calculating «systematicity» is proposed. The necessity of mandatory forensic psychological examination to record moral damage in cases of torture is substantiated. The practical significance lies in developing recommendations that minimize investigative errors and enhance the legal protection of domestic violence victims.

Annotation: The key problem in the qualification of crimes against life is the systemic complexity of differentiating murder committed in a state of affect (temporary insanity/passion) from intentional murder (including those motivated by revenge or committed during an altercation). In practice, the boundary between sudden intense mental agitation (physiological affect) and ordinary emotional excitement or planned intent often remains blurred. Mistakes by investigators and courts in assessing the duration of the psychotraumatic situation and the trigger actions of the victim lead either to unjustifiably harsh punishment for individuals acting in a state of affect, or, conversely, to the unwarranted mitigation of liability for intentional crimes. The purpose of the article is a comprehensive legal, psychological, and forensic analysis of the criteria for affected murder, identification of defects in judicial and investigative practice during its separation from related offenses, and the development of scientifically grounded recommendations for improving normative criteria for assessing sudden intense mental agitation. The study utilizes formal-dogmatic (normative), comparative-legal, and systemic-structural methods, along with a comprehensive analysis of judicial practice materials and the findings of forensic psychiatric and psychological examinations. The analysis revealed that courts often ignore the phenomenon of "cumulative affect" (aggression accumulated due to prolonged domestic violence), erroneously interpreting such actions as premeditated. The necessity of mandatory appointment of a comprehensive forensic psychological and psychiatric examination in all cases where the defendant claims disorientation of consciousness is substantiated. The practical significance lies in minimizing judicial errors in the qualification of violent crimes against life.

Annotation: The development of platform employment and the introduction of algorithmic management lead to the destruction of the traditional legal status of the worker. Platforms position themselves as information intermediaries, classifying performers as independent contractors, which causes mass precarization of labor, deprivation of social guarantees, and a legal vacuum in protecting citizens' rights. Theoretical and legal analysis of the transformation of the status of platform employment subjects and the development of conceptual recommendations for modernizing the labor legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, taking into account the best practices of the European Union. The study applied a comprehensive methodological approach, including dialectical, systemic, formal-legal, and comparative-legal methods. The empirical base consisted of international acts, including EU Directive 2024/2831, ILO, and UN documents. It has been proven that the civil law model of regulating platform employment prevailing in Kazakhstan does not reflect the power asymmetry of relations and legalizes fictitious selfemployment. It has been established that algorithmic management is a new form of hidden employer control. The critical need to abandon the rigid "worker-independent contractor" dichotomy is substantiated. The implementation of the European model into the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan is proposed: the legislative consolidation of a rebuttable presumption of an employment relationship for platform workers and the introduction of strict norms of algorithmic transparency. These measures will ensure a balance between digital innovations and the protection of the right to decent work.

Annotation: The digital transformation of the financial sector and the rapid development of InsurTech technologies (smart contracts, artificial intelligence, marketplaces) are radically changing the legal nature of the insurance contract. A critical lag emerges between conservative civil legislation and the pace of innovation implementation, creating risks of algorithmic discrimination and legal uncertainty. A comprehensive analysis of the transformation of the insurance contract under the influence of digital ecosystems, identification of gaps in current regulation, and the development of recommendations for harmonizing the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, taking into account advanced international experience. The study is based on an integrative methodology, including formal-legal, systemic-structural, and comparative-legal (analysis of the EU AI Act, UK and US experience) methods, as well as legal modeling and legal hermeneutics. An epistemological shift from the simple digitization of a policy to self-executing algorithmic obligations is proven. The necessity of a hybrid contractual architecture is substantiated. The impact of the Law of the RK dated June 30, 2025, which legalizes insurance marketplaces, is analyzed. It has been established that the algorithmization of underwriting requires the implementation of risk-oriented standards to avoid algorithmic bias. The objective need for the prompt introduction of "regulatory sandbox" regimes and norms of algorithmic transparency in Kazakhstan has been proven. The proposed recommendations aim to adapt the Civil Code of the RK, establish the legal status of smart contracts, and ensure a balance between the development of innovations and the protection of financial service consumers' rights.

Annotation: A deep systemic crisis is observed in the legal system of the Republic of Kazakhstan, caused by the blurring of the material and legal boundary between administrative offenses and criminal misdemeanors. This imbalance generates procedural paralysis of investigative bodies, deforms criminal statistics, and violates basic principles of justice when administrative sanctions de facto multiply exceed criminal ones. A comprehensive scientific and practical analysis of the problems of differentiating administrative and criminal delicts in police activities, identifying the determinants of the procedural collapse, and developing fundamental recommendations for optimizing the architecture of public liability. The research utilizes dialectical, formal-legal, comparative-legal, and statistical tools. Mathematical modeling of the "punitive equivalent" of sanctions was conducted, and the relevant empirical data of the law enforcement agencies of the Pavlodar region for 2024 were analyzed. A deep theoretical and legal dissonance in the interpretation of the category of "public danger" has been established. It is proven that 27 % of administrative offenses are equal to or exceed criminal misdemeanors in terms of the severity of punishment. High latency of crime and artificial transformation of police statistics due to the redundancy of the criminal procedural form of investigating minor acts have been identified. The critical need for a doctrinal revision of legislation is substantiated: strict synchronization of sanctions of the Administrative Offenses Code and the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan with the introduction of genuinely simplified proceedings, or the complete abolition of the category of "criminal misdemeanor" with a return to the binary system and the implementation of the institution of administrative prejudice following the example of adjacent legal systems.

Annotation: The rapid introduction of artificial intelligence into the criminal process and the mass proliferation of "deepfake" technology are destroying traditional paradigms of proof. There is an acute need to verify machine conclusions and protect justice from digital falsifications, which is exacerbated by the procedural lag of legislation. The formation of a comprehensive doctrinal understanding of the mechanisms of verification and the conditions for the admissibility of AI evidence based on a comparative legal analysis of foreign experience and an assessment of the legislative novelties of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The study applied a comprehensive approach, including comparative-legal (analysis of the systems of the USA, UK, Germany, EU), formal-legal, formal-logical, and systemic-structural methods. The epistemological dualism of AI evidence ("acknowledged" algorithmic decisions and "unacknowledged" deepfakes) was revealed. It has been established that foreign experience (EU AI Act, US and ECtHR practice) proves the acute need for a strict procedural audit of algorithms to prevent miscarriages of justice (the "liar's dividend" phenomenon). It is proven that the domestic Criminal Procedure Code of the RK objectively lags behind the norms of the new Law of the RK "On Artificial Intelligence" and requires adaptation. The critical need to modernize the doctrinal concept of "special scientific knowledge" is substantiated. The introduction of mandatory mechanisms for the algorithmic audit of intellectual systems will make it possible to eliminate the monopoly of AI developers on establishing the truth, ensuring an ideal balance between the technological efficiency of investigating crimes and strict compliance with the constitutional rights of citizens.

Annotation: The key problem in the investigation of serial crimes against personality is the destructive fragmentation and the lack of effective multidisciplinary interaction between investigation subjects, forensic experts, and practicing psychologists (profilers). The existing methodological gap leads to an underestimation of the behavioral and psychological traces of the crime, which are often perceived by investigators as secondary compared to the traditional physical evidence base (DNA, fingerprinting, ballistics). This creates a "tunnel vision" phenomenon among investigative teams, delays the establishment of the serial nature of crimes, limits the analytical potential of expert opinions, and, as a result, allows serial offenders to evade justice for years, increasing the number of victims. The purpose of the article is a comprehensive theoretical and methodological analysis of barriers to multidisciplinary interaction in the investigation of serial crimes against personality, identification of systemic defects in communication between investigative, forensic, and psychological institutions, as well as the development of a scientifically grounded model for integrating behavioral analysis into traditional investigation algorithms. Particular attention is paid to creating a unified methodological language for forensic scientists and psychologists, forming end-to-end interagency investigative-operational teams, and protecting expert independence from departmental pressure. The study utilizes comparative forensic, systemic-structural, formal-logical, and analytical methods, as well as a retrospective analysis of criminal case materials regarding serial murders and sexual violence. The methodological framework is based on the content analysis of relevant regulatory legal acts governing forensic expert activity, methodical recommendations on maintaining consolidated forensic records, as well as international and domestic protocols for constructing a searching psychological profile (profiling). The analysis revealed key problems: rigid departmental isolation of expert and investigative units, conceptual distrust of practitioners towards forensic psychological examination data, the lack of unified standards for fixing and interpreting the offender's "behavioral handwriting" (Modus Operandi) at the crime scene, and a shortage of qualified personnel possessing competencies at the intersection of forensics and deviantology. It has been established that to overcome these barriers, comprehensive measures are required: the implementation of end-to-end digital platforms for automatic cross-matching of physical and behavioral evidence from different regions, modernization of training programs for investigators in the field of forensic psychology, and the statutory consolidation of the status of a specialist profiler within the criminal procedure framework. Solving these problems will ensure rapid recognition of the serial nature of crimes at early stages, minimize the risk of expert errors (including confirmation bias), and significantly increase the clearance rate of latent encroachments on human life and property. Harmonization of interaction between science and investigative practice will strengthen the protection of society against the most dangerous criminal threats and increase public confidence in the effectiveness of the law enforcement system

Annotation: In the context of digital transformation and exponential data growth, traditional methods of prosecutorial supervision are losing their effectiveness. The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies opens up new opportunities, yet breeds complex procedural and ethical conflicts, including the risks of technocratic arbitrariness and algorithmic discrimination. To develop a scientifically grounded doctrine for the application of AI in the supervisory activities of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan, considering the latest legislative restrictions, and to define strict boundaries for algorithmic intervention. The study employs a comprehensive approach, including dialectical, formal-legal (analysis of the Law of the RK "On Artificial Intelligence" and relevant concepts), and comparative-legal methods to contrast the Kazakhstani, Asian, and Anglo-Saxon regulatory models. It is established that a strictly regulated "human-centric" AI model is emerging in Kazakhstan. Three levels of limits for algorithm application are substantiated: epistemological (AI acts exclusively as an assistant), procedural (the inadmissibility of replacing a prosecutor's inner conviction with a machine-generated conclusion), and ethical (legislative prohibition of manipulation and biometric discrimination). The study proves the necessity of adapting criminal procedural legislation to the norms of digital law, implementing a sovereign IT infrastructure, and developing prosecutors' competencies in supervising algorithmic legality. Meeting these conditions will ensure a balance between technological progress and the strict protection of citizens' constitutional rights.

Annotation: The key problem in investigating crimes involving staging is the complexity of identifying the intentional distortion of the physical environment used to mask the true nature of the event. The psychological mechanisms behind a perpetrator’s creation of a "false picture" lead to information noise and the disorientation of the investigation. Existing methodologies do not always account for the subtle connection between the subject's psychophysiological state and the nature of the traces they leave, which complicates the recognition of "negative circumstances" and the identification of the offender's personality through their behavioral signature in the physical environment. The goal of the article is to study the psychological foundations of staging as a specific type of forensic activity, identify patterns in the distortion of the physical environment, and develop criteria for the psychological diagnosis of staging. Particular attention is paid to analyzing the internal mechanism of forming a false alibi through material objects and identifying the typical "psychological lapses" of a perpetrator when modeling a crime scene. The study utilizes the systemic-structural method, the method of psychological modeling, the comparative-analytical method, and an analysis of expert and investigative practice. The theoretical framework is composed of works on forensic technology and judicial psychology, which allowed for the synthesis of knowledge regarding material traces and the mental processes of the subject who left them. The analysis revealed patterns in the emergence of "informational contradictions" between the ideal model of the crime in the mind of the perpetrator and its physical manifestation. It was established that the redundancy or demonstrativeness of traces is often a consequence of psychological tension and the subject's drive for hypercompensation. It is proven that identifying signs of staging should be based on searching for inconsistencies between the objective logic of the event's progression and the perpetrator's subjective perceptions of the scene's "plausibility." Solving these problems will increase the efficiency of crime scene examinations, reduce the time required to expose the guilty, and minimize the risk of investigative errors caused by artificially created versions. The findings contribute to the development of the forensic doctrine of staging and the improvement of the tactics of investigative actions.

Annotation: The rapid integration of algorithmic facial recognition technologies (FRT) into the activities of the administrative police generates a deep institutional imbalance. The formation of a total video surveillance infrastructure poses a direct threat to citizens' constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of movement, exacerbated by the lack of clear specific legislation and the risks of machine bias. A comprehensive conceptual analysis of existing legal models for the use of biometric technologies by the police to develop scientifically grounded recommendations for achieving a balance between public safety and the informational autonomy of the individual. The research applies a comprehensive approach, including systemic, formal-dogmatic, and comparative-legal (EU, USA, UK, RK) methods. Special emphasis is placed on the analysis of the ECtHR case law (Glukhin v. Russia) and the relevant empirical statistics of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2024–2025. The high forensic effectiveness of FRT is recognized. However, it has been established that in Kazakhstan, the use of recognition systems is primarily regulated by subordinate acts, which provides law enforcement agencies with excessive discretion. Indiscriminate biometric scanning of the population de facto erases the presumption of innocence. The critical need to reform national legislation by implementing international risk-oriented standards (EU AI Act) and ECtHR principles (extrema ratio) is substantiated. Specific steps are proposed: mandatory judicial authorization of algorithmic searches, establishment of an exhaustive list of crimes for FRT use, and the creation of an independent AI audit institution.