Legal regulation and practical implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in Kazakhstan’s criminal procedure are considered within the context of judicial digital transformation. Risks arise for fundamental procedural principles, including the presumption of innocence, adversarial process, and protection of individual rights and freedoms. Legislative mechanisms ensuring lawful and rights-based application of AI in criminal proceedings are required to maintain procedural balance. Comparative legal analysis, formal legal research, and a systemic approach reveal gaps in existing legislation: absence of clear definitions, insufficient regulation, and lack of accountability for AI use. Legal recognition of AI and the establishment of procedural safeguards are essential. The novelty of the study lies in the development of concrete approaches to the introduction of artificial intelligence technologies into criminal procedure, taking into account Kazakhstan’s practical experience with the digitalization of criminal case management. Unlike existing research, which examines AI in the legal profession primarily from a theoretical perspective, this work proposes detailed mechanisms for integrating models and algorithms into the processing of criminal cases. The implementation of AI in criminal justice enhances the efficiency, transparency, and accuracy of case handling by automating document preparation, data analysis, and monitoring compliance with procedural deadlines. At the same time, several constraints persist, including dependence on the quality of training datasets, the impossibility of fully replacing human legal judgment, and the need to uphold the principles of the presumption of innocence, the right to privacy, and algorithmic transparency. The findings of the study underscore the potential of AI, provided that procedural safeguards are strictly observed and competent authorities exercise appropriate oversight. Two potential approaches are outlined: selective amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code concerning rights protection, privacy, and judicial powers; or adoption of a separate provision on digital technologies and AI. Implementation of these measures would create a balanced legal framework that enables effective use of AI while preserving core procedural guarantees.
Mukhamadiyeva et al. (Fri,) studied this question.