In recent years, stalking as a form of obsessive and systematic harassment has assumed increasing importance. Advances in digital technology, expanded means of communication, and the accessibility of personal data have significantly broadened the means by which an individual’s private life may be monitored, thereby increasing the social danger posed by such conduct.

The objective in implementing this initiative is not to immediately convict citizens under this provision and send them to prison. This provision is being introduced to prevent serious, and particularly grave crimes, notes Abzal Kuspan, a deputy of the Mazhilis of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan [1, p. 10].

At the same time, it was emphasized that the recognition of stalking as a distinct criminal offence constitutes a novel legislative development in the Republic of Kazakhstan, thereby necessitating an assessment of the effectiveness of its legal regulation in practice. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the novelty of its statutory recognition does not mean that the phenomenon itself is new.

For instance, in the spring of 2021, a mother of three in Atyrau was stalked by an acquaintance. One day, no longer able to restrain his impulses, he broke down the balcony door, entered the apartment, struck the woman in the head with an axe, and then hanged himself in the bathroom. Prior to the incident, the victim had repeatedly contacted law enforcement authorities, but no action was taken by law enforcement officers [2].

The next incident occurred on January 11, 2023, in Shymkent, where a 21-year-old woman died from stab wounds. Video footage circulated online shows the woman attempting to flee and then resisting, while a young man beats and stabs her. He subsequently flees the crime scene [3]. This crime was committed following the prolonged stalking of the victim, her abduction for the purpose of forcing her into marriage, and the perpetrator’s subsequent use of violence, which resulted in her murder.

In January 2026, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs Igor Lepekha reported that, at that time, only approximately eight criminal cases involving stalking had been initiated in the country. The sharp increase in the figure to 51 cases referred to court indicates that the mechanism for recording such crimes has begun to operate more effectively [4]. The criminal offence provided for under Article 115-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan is systematic in nature; therefore, the 51 cases reflect not the actual scale of the phenomenon, but merely the initial level of its detection. Thus, such acts existed previously but did not receive an appropriate criminal-law assessment.

Given that stalking may, in some cases, result in severe and even fatal consequences for victims, the existing sanction appears disproportionate to the nature and degree of social danger posed by this criminal offence. In our view, the assessment of the need to increase the severity of the sanction should be based on the tenets of criminological theory.

In criminological theory, stalking is regarded as a form of deviant behaviour caused by a combination of biological, psychological, and social factors, which gives rise to different types of stalkers. Thus, P. Mullen, M. Pathé, R. Purcell, and J. Stuart identify five categories of stalkers:

1. The rejected stalker.
2. The intimacy-seeking stalker.
3. The incompetent suitor.
4. The resentful stalker.
5. The predatory stalker [5, p. 280]

This typology indicates that stalkers’ behaviour is deviant in nature and, in some cases, is associated with psychological disturbances, obsessive fixations, and a distorted perception of interpersonal relationships; consequently, such behaviour poses a threat to the lives and health of stalking “victims.”

Thus, Jokhar Utebekov writes in his article that, in Western countries, mandatory psychological correction for stalkers is widely practiced under the threat of revocation of a suspended sentence. There is a clear understanding that stalkers must be treated [6, p. 4].

Alongside this, foreign states recognise the need to establish stricter criminal liability for stalking, taking into account its systematic nature and the potential danger it poses to the lives and health of victims.

In this regard, Deputy Abzal Kuspan’s position on the need for lengthy practical testing of the provision appears debatable, since the accumulated foreign experience confirms the high degree of social danger posed by stalking and the need for the timely development of proportionate response mechanisms. This is confirmed by foreign experience in the criminal-law regulation of stalking.

The United Kingdom has the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which has been in force since 1997. A criminal offence under this Act carries a penalty of up to six months’ imprisonment, while courts may impose up to ten years’ imprisonment for stalking that causes fear of violence or serious alarm. In addition, taking into account the individual’s mental condition, courts may request psychiatric reports [7].

In Australia, the State of Victoria’s Crimes Act 1958 contains section 21A, “Stalking,” which has been in force since January 1995 and provides for a penalty of ten years’ imprisonment. As part of the response to stalkers, courts consider the need to impose correctional and therapeutic measures, since the psychological and behavioural causes of stalking are taken into account [8].

South Korea provides a more noteworthy practical example, as it adopted the Act on Punishment of Stalking Crimes on April 20, 2021. Despite the novelty of this law, the original version of the Act provided for a penalty of three years’ imprisonment for stalking and, under aggravating circumstances, up to five years’ imprisonment [9].

The experience of the United Kingdom, Australia, and South Korea demonstrates that, in foreign legal systems, stalking is regarded as an act that may directly result in imprisonment. At the same time, the United Kingdom and Australia additionally apply a comprehensive approach under which punishment may be combined with psychiatric assessment, psychological correction, and other measures intended to influence the offender’s behaviour.

This experience indicates the need to revise both the sanction and certain elements of the criminal offence provided for under Article 115-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

First, it would be appropriate to dispense with the overly evaluative element of “substantial harm” in the operative wording of Article 115-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. This wording does not allow for a consistent determination of which specific consequences of stalking should be recognized as legally significant. The consequences of stalking for the victim may take the form of constant stress, anxiety, or emotional discomfort, which we regard as substantial harm. However, the phrase “substantial harm” may be interpreted differently by law enforcement authorities, which, in turn, may result in an unjustified refusal to protect the victim’s rights.

Second, the operative wording of the Article should incorporate the element of a compelled change in the victim’s usual way of life. This approach makes it possible to reflect the stalker’s actual impact on the individual’s daily life: the person, namely the victim, does not merely experience psychological discomfort but is compelled to change their “everyday routine,” travel routes, means of communication, social circle, place of residence, work, or study, as well as to take additional personal security measures.

In this regard, it would be reasonable to include a note in Article 115-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan stipulating that a compelled change in the victim’s usual way of life means actions taken by the victim as a result of stalking and that, in addition to the actions specified in the preceding paragraph, such actions include changing a telephone number or accounts, strengthening personal security measures, and seeking assistance from persons close to the victim, specialists, representatives, or law enforcement authorities. However, this list should not be exhaustive, since the forms of stalking, types of stalkers, and methods by which victims respond may vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

Moreover, in our view, the current version of Article 115-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan requires, from the outset, a more thorough differentiation of liability depending on the degree of social danger posed by the act. Accordingly, at this stage, amendments and additions should be introduced to provide for harsher punishment for stalking involving threats of harm, as well as stalking carried out using digital technologies and monitoring tools. With respect to these forms, it appears justified to prescribe a penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, while the current wording should be retained for stalking not involving the aforementioned acts; however, a penalty of up to six months’ imprisonment should be introduced.

A stricter approach is justified in cases where stalking is accompanied by unlawful entry into a dwelling or other protected premises, since such acts affect the inviolability of private life and personal safety, which is manifested in a threat to the individual’s life, health, and sexual inviolability. Consequently, for a criminal offence involving unlawful entry into a dwelling or other protected premises, it appears justified to prescribe a penalty of three to five years’ imprisonment.

In addition to the principal punishment, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan should make it mandatory for a person found guilty of stalking to undergo a programme of psychological correction, psychotherapeutic counselling, or psychological supervision for a period of at least six months.

We, in turn, justify this innovation on the grounds that stalking is characterised by deviant, socially inappropriate behaviour, which is often associated with obsessive and destructive attitudes and therefore requires not only the imposition of imprisonment, but also professional correction aimed at preventing recidivism.

Our position is also supported by other human rights defenders, who point out that offenders and stalkers pay a fine and continue the stalking. Living with such psychological violence is not easy. Therefore, I believe that this should be incorporated into law and that the issue of strict punishment should be considered [1, p. 10].

Thus, stricter criminal liability for stalking, combined with mandatory measures of psychological correction for stalkers, is a necessary condition for ensuring the effective protection of individual rights and preventing more serious criminal offences.