The Creative Heritage of Aleksandr Grigorievich Pushechnikov (Zhumageldy Yelyubayev, Lawyer and former judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan)

Dedicated to the cherished memory of Aleksandr Grigorievich Pushechnikov

The Creative Heritage of
Aleksandr Grigorievich Pushechnikov[1]

Aleksandr Grigorievich Pushechnikov was born on November 16, 1924. He finished the High School in Karaganda and got the diploma with distinction. He fought at fronts lines of the Great Patriotic War and reached Berlin. He was awarded two Orders of the Great Patriotic War, Medal for the Liberation of Warsaw, Medal for the Capture of Berlin, two Medals for Courage, and many anniversary medals for combat merits. After demobilization in 1947, he entered Alma-Ata State Law Institute and graduated with honors in 1951. Then, until 1957 he worked in the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Kazakh SSR where he occupied the post of the Prosecutor of the Department for Supervision over Criminal Proceedings. From 1958 to 1961 he was a judge of the Supreme Court of the Kazakh SSR. From 1962 to 1989 he worked as the First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic - the Chairman of the Division for Criminal Cases. In 1989 he retired and for ten years he worked as a lawyer in Almaty City Bar Association. For his devotion to justice he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, Order of Badge of Honor and the high title of Honored Lawyer of Kazakh SSR.

Among the teachers the fate sends me, the special place belongs to a remarkable person, even legendary among lawyers - Alexander Grigorievich Pushechnikov, a person exciting my admiration to the present day. I regret profoundly that I have not so many chances to communicate with him: when I started my judicial activity in Kazakhstan, Alexander Grigorievich was finishing his professional career. However, those few years of dealing with this wonderful person allows me to speak about him as a highly professional and independent judge, a patriot and a citizen of his country, who possessed a high degree of intelligence, broad erudition and integrity. Despite the fact that he held a senior position, he never exalted himself, tried to be equal with his colleagues and accessible to everyone seeking to protect his/her rights in court. Meanwhile, within 28 years he held one of the highest positions in Kazakhstan, the First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Kazakh SSR. I note with grief and bitterness that the new government of independent Kazakhstan was not in need of his knowledge and experience. To the great surprise of his colleagues Alexander Grigorievich was unexpectedly resigned from his post.

The politicized people tried to groundlessly and unjustly accuse Aleksandr Grigorievich of bias during legal proceedings in criminal cases initiated after events of December 1986. In general they failed, but they succeeded to denigrate his good reputation to some extent. Perhaps this was the reason for making a quick decision on his retire. However, nothing could change the good attitude of colleagues to Alexander Grigorievich, because his name became a synonym for a true servant of law and truth, and he never transcended the limits of justice. Like any human being he could be wrong, but it was impossible for him to commit a deliberate violation of law, including matters related to the December events of 1986. This was confirmed later, when the parliamentary investigation of consequences of these events have found nothing that could smirch the fair name of Alexander Grigorievich.

Having been one of the first leaders of the highest court of Kazakhstan for almost thirty years, Alexander Grigorievich made an invaluable contribution to strengthening and development of the judicial system, formation of law enforcement practice, education and establishment of the constellation of independent and honest judges. He was one of the most acknowledged authorities in the juridical area, and it is justified, because his knowledge, experience and his position in controversial issues always promoted adoption of fair and equitable resolutions, and ultimately the administration of justice.

 Intention to become familiar with the little-known creative heritage of Alexander Grigorievich, the attempt of certain analysis of a part of his works proceeds from the desire to make the modern generation of lawyers, first of all judges, aware of his thoughts outside the box. Alexander Grigorievich had no academic degree or title, but he had analytical thinking and research skills. Profound knowledge of law and encyclopedic erudition enabled him to be in charge of the Scientific Advisory Board under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court composed of leading legal scholars of our Republic during several decades. They show deference and deep respect to Alexander Grigorievich, rightly reckoning that the true scientist, they believed he was, needs no regalia. His professionalism allowed him to study a range of theoretical problems of that day and develop scientific views, which were gratefully accepted by the scientific and legal community not only in Kazakhstan, but also over the whole territory of the great country called the Soviet Union. Several of his works and scientific views are of interest today, for example, concerning issues of necessary defense, public participation in crime prevention.

 I was fortunate to find only a part of his works in libraries and archives of his friends and colleagues. I am sure that some of his scientific works can be found in the archives of regional and local courts, in academic, regional and district libraries, so we will be grateful to those who assist us during their search.

 One of the first scientific works of A.G. Pushechnikov, which became available due to our efforts, is «Problems of Public Prejudice in Soviet Criminal Law» published in 1953 in the Collected Papers of the Law Department of Kazan University. Firs of all, this work draws attention due to its well-developed topic, thorough insight into the problem and validity of conclusions. It focuses attention on the role and place of the community in crime prevention. He was convinced that the purpose of measures of social influence is not only special, but the general crime prevention and considered that limitation of social influence by special deterrence was a wrong measure in contrast to government influence, particularly a punishment having not only special deterrent, but general preventive value.[2] The older generation of lawyers remembers how effective comrades' courts and voluntary people's guards were. They used to do a lot of preventive work. Based on the study of practice of comrades' courts and other public organizations Aleksandr Grigorievich came to the conclusion that once the state had delegated authority to the public to apply rules of law, the decisions made by public institutions were of a legal nature and obligatory for all and adduced convincing arguments.

 His new work entitled «Issues of Public Participation in Struggle with Crimes and Offenses» published in 1960 in the book «Memoirs of Kazakh State University» is of persistent interest. In this work he emphasized and proved applicability of community participation in prevention of socially dangerous acts.[3] In the same year, Kazakh State Publishing House (Kazgosizdat) published the joint monograph of A.G. Pushechnikov and B.P. Timokhovich titled «Community and Struggle against Crime» in which the authors examine issues of public participation in administration of justice through the perspective of operating the comrades’ courts, importance of social and legal institution of that day.[4]

 In 1958, the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR devoted a special issue of its edition «Proceedings of the Institute of Philosophy and Law» to the paper titled «Some Matters of Petty Theft Practice» prepared by Alexander Grigorievich based on the judicial practice in Kazakh SSR. In this paper, the author studied in detail the provisions of the Decree of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR «On criminal liability for stealing of state and public property» dated June 4, 1947 and «On criminal liability for petty theft of state and public property» dated January 10, 1955. Based on the settled investigative and judicial practice with respect of applying these decrees, Aleksandr Grigorievich stated theoretical and practical comments of these legal acts, analyzed the juridical errors and offered his vision of legislative settings. In his work he expressed a crucial position of impropriety of establishing the only value line separating a petty theft from a general one, assuming that the low cost of stolen property is necessary, but not the only feature of a petty theft. He believed that other characteristics, such as quantity, volume and weight, should be taken into account together with the cost of stolen property. Also, he expressed his other noteworthy opinion concerning necessity to separate a petty theft and theft in the tiny amount, for example, theft of several pieces of potatoes or a lock of straw, etc (these types of offenses were widespread in the post-war period). The paper contains comprehensive recommendations how to determine such important features as repetition and continued deed, which influence on the classification of acts of persons guilty of these types of crimes. He made his conclusions not only on the basis of the provisions of these decrees, but also on the results of comparative analysis of criminal and administrative legislation of the People’s Republic of Hungary[5], the People’s Republic of Poland, the People’s Republic of Albania, the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, as well as based on the study of scientific papers of scientists and experts in criminal law known at that time, such as M. Sokolova, A. Raevskaya, M. Kovalev, E. Frolov, A. Shchedrin, N. Savvin.[6] It should be recognized that this tractate by A.G. Pushechnikov played an important role in establishment of uniformity of the investigative and judicial practice in cases of state and public property theft.

 In 1977 in Minsk Aleksandr Grigorievich published the work entitled «The Defense against Criminal Assault». This paper is devoted to examination of the institution of necessary defense undeservingly buried at that time. Aleksandr Grigorievich not only analyzed the theoretical principles that characterize this legal institution, but also substantiated his vision of its place in the criminal law.[7] Later this topic was studied in detail in his monographic scientific paper «Necessary Defense under Soviet Criminal Law» published by the publishing house «Kazakhstan» in 1979 with circulation of 13,500 copies. This book become a reference manual for lawyers of that time, because the issues of necessary defense were unpopular and not every investigator, prosecutor or judge had the courage to apply the provisions of this legal institution defending the rights, honor and dignity of a human, whose acts might be determined as a crime.

 In this paper Aleksandr Grigorievich explained the concept of necessary defense: against what offences and for protection of what rights and interests it is permitted to do harm to an assailant, what are the conditions for lawfulness of necessary defense and detention of criminals, what consequences may occur, when the limits of necessary defense are exceeded. These points were illustrated using examples from the judicial practice of Kazakh SSR. He disagreed strongly with the existing scientific views that a person assaulted did not have the right to defend himself/herself actively, if he had the opportunity to make a safe getaway, refer to citizens or government authorities for help or choose any other methods not being active countermeasures against an attacker. He referred to the directives of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR dated December 4, 1969 entitled «On Court Practice of Applying Necessary Defense Legislation». In this monographic scientific work Aleksandr Grigorievich presented well-formulated circumstances of necessary defense lawfulness and gave appropriate explanations. These arguments and conclusions remain valid to this day. In particular, he identified important conditions under which a person could obtain the right to self-defense. They include the public danger of offence, actuality of offence, presence of offence. The terms of necessary defense and extreme necessity were distinguished, describing characteristic features of exceeding limits of necessary defense, excessive defense, untimely defense and investigated the circumstances of physiological affect.[8]

 In 1980 the second edition of «Commentaries to the Criminal Code of the Kazakh SSR» was published. It was developed by leading scientists and experts in criminal law: G.F. Polenov, B.S. Beissenov, V.N. Markelov, A.G. Pushechnikov and other authors. Aleksandr Grigorievich prepared priceless in terms of theory and practice commentaries on many articles of the Criminal Code of Kazakh SSR, their provisions have not lost their importance today.[9]

 In 1984 the next monographic scientific work of Aleksandr Grigorievich entitled «Liability for Falsification of Reports» was published. It was devoted to the analysis of legislation establishing the liability for write-ups and any other misrepresentation of facts in reports on implementation of the plan. It is known that the whole country's economy in that period developed on the basis of the socialist administration system and five-year plans approved by the supreme authority, and this work was very important for prevention of offences related to falsification of reports on implementation of state plans by enterprises, organizations and agencies of the Kazakh SSR. The author drew the line between such crimes as write-ups, other falsification of reports and forgery by an official. At the heart of these distinctions is the expanded analysis of essential element of offence - the object, objective aspect, subject, subjective aspect. He examined features of write-ups and other falsification of reports by construction companies, agricultural, motor transport and trading enterprises and offered his own recommendations concerning proper classification of these crimes. When considering issues relating to assignment of punishment, Aleksandr Grigorievich expressed his principled position that not only basic types of criminal punishment (a fine, corrective labor, deprivation of liberty) should be administered to persons having committed these crimes, but also the additional punishment (deprivation of the right to occupy determined posts or to engage in a determined activity). He believed that this approach promotes efficiency of the criminal law enforcement.[10]

 In the period of recent history of Kazakhstan, having been forcibly retired from service, Aleksandr Grigorievich Pushechnikov began to work in advocacy, but soon he was out of conceit with it, because not always his knowledge and experience were properly perceived by investigators, prosecutors and judges. I know a case when one day after unsuccessful participation in the juridical process Alexander Grigorievich said to his close friend with great regret and grief the following: «Why should I engage in advocacy, if my knowledge and experience are not wanted». To the end of his life Aleksandr Grigorievich remained an active person, he gave the necessary legal assistance, tried to maintain the healthy forces in society which were not afraid to criticize unpopular steps of new government and high-handed officials. He was a non-indifferent person, his active positions and citizenship, as well as faith in the fact that the country can become democratic, legal and social had led Aleksandr Grigorievich to the People's Party «The Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan». I should hardly think that he shared the ideology and particular actions of this Party. But I think that he consciously chose the Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan among the parties existing in Kazakhstan believing that its name had credibility. He was an active member of this party. The evidence proving that fact is his accession to the Open Appeal to the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan from Creative Intelligentsia of the Country. I find it appropriate to quote the entire text of this Appeal. Notwithstanding that it is dated 2005, many of its provisions are still of current interest.

«Open Appeal to the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan from

Creative Intelligentsia of the Country

Since ancient times people of intellectual work - akyns, zhyraus - exercise a specific function, express and protect interests of people. Their social status allows them to apply directly, without any middleman, to their leaders on the most urgent problems.

We share your aspirations to build a democratic society. The world community appreciates you initiative to build a multi-party system in Kazakhstan. However, Kazakh society welcomed the New Year 2005 with a non-democratic step made by local guardians of justice: the People's Party «Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan» was liquidated. Nothing more, nothing less!

And this step has been taken in spite of some achievements in democratization of social consciousness, your open declaration of the strategy of the political system democratization. The role of the opposition is not only to replace the acting government, but to improve it for public ends. The opposition - it is a necessary feedback.

The power system shall be interested in presence and strengthening of the opposition, because it conceptually returns the system to the equilibrium position, eliminates the threat of self-destruction and prevents the social collapse.

We, the intellectuals of Kazakhstan, ask you to protect the People's Party «Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan» against short-sighted judicial decision concerning its liquidation, which preserve the social stability in society. We are certain that the Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan is a necessary part of the multi-party system, which states dissent in the name of improving the general welfare of Kazakhstan society.

The attempt to set activities of the opposition party against constitutional provisions - it's a gimmick aimed to put you into the lingering conflict within Kazakhstan, and with foreign democratic structures. This is the biggest mistake over the whole period of reforms in the country. The Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan has its followers in our society, and they are not a few. Their interests shall be represented in the civilized and legal form, in accordance with modern requirements of political dissent culture and not be driven into a blind alley.

The presence of the opposition and creation of legal conditions for its operation is a sign of the strong acting government. For the national consciousness you, Mr. President, is the symbol and guarantor of stability in the country. Let’s together step to a new level of conscious political stability and its necessary components, modern and adequate to the time.

 We urge you to show good faith, political wisdom and act as the Protector of the Constitution and prevent the forced liquidation of the opposition in the country.

 Signers: Murat Mukhtarovich Auezov, culture expert; Bolat Atabayev, honored person of the Republic of Kazakhstan, director; G.D. Tlenchieva, lawyer, A. Polyakov, ecologist; S. Kuttykadam, politician, leader of Orleu movement; M.T. Baimakhanov, Doctor of Law, Professor; U.I. Ikhsanov, Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, retired, A.G. Pushechnikov, former First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Kazakh SSR, 1962-1989, honored lawyer of Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, the honorable Judge of Kazakhstan, veteran of the Second World War; A.N. Yamalutdinov, Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Kazakh SSR, 1982-1989, holder of three orders and five medals, two honorary certificates of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR, honored pensioner of national standing; Murat Telbekov, President of the Union of Muslims of Kazakhstan, G. Askarov, journalist, etc.»[11]

Being the perfect lawyer, Alexander Grigorievich always was a man of principle, but at the same time true-to-life, with self-restraint and ethical cleanliness which distinguish him. These qualities he showed in dealing with representatives of mass media. He never crossed the threshold beyond which there were biased position, perversion of law or circumstances of any events under investigation. All Kazakhstanis remember the tragic death of the famous politician Altynbek Sarsenbayev. In this story, everyone has their own truth... Subsequent to the results of judicial examination of the criminal case against people supposed to be accessory to the murder of the politician, the opposition newspaper «Azat» asked Aleksandr Grigorievich to comment this high-profile case. And in this situation he remained impartial, he did not take up this or that position because he had not known all the circumstances of this terrible event, had not been familiar with the case and made legal evaluation only of those facts that he had known well, while a number of questions of the journalist were suggestive and purposeful. Below you find some questions and answers of Aleksandr Grigorievich, which stamp him as the honest, principled and unbiased person.

Journalist's question: «What is your estimate of the trial for the murder of Sarsenbayev?»

Aleksandr Grigorievich: «You understand that it is difficult to evaluate the proceeding and imposed sentence without knowing the materials of the case inside out, without participating directly as a judge in material analysis».

Journalist: «Difficult, but not impossible?»

Aleksandr Grigorievich: «It is possible to say only about the glaring procedural infractions, which were made during investigation and court proceedings and they, of course, could affect the legality and validity of the juridical judgment...»

Journalist: «What procedural infractions have you noticed?»

Aleksandr Grigorievich: «First of all, a lot of motions presented by victims and the defense were justified and aimed at ascertainment of the truth. However, unfortunately, the court has rejected them at the suggestion of the prosecutor. Also the court has not adopted any measures to exclude the version of other persons implication in this crime. This must be done to make the verdict legally perfect. Important witnesses in this case have not been questioned; explicit contradictions in their testimonies have not been eliminated. Each examination consists of a single phrase. It is hard to believe that these examinations have been conducted by the head of the investigation team. Even a law student seeing the obvious contradictions knows that they need to be eliminated, it is necessary to confront the witnesses, thoroughly question them. It is essential to find out why statements of the witness do not correspond to the reality. If a student solves the problem in this way during criminal procedure seminars, he or she will be put a bad mark».

Journalist: «What is your estimate of other investigative actions?»

Aleksandr Grigorievich: «The court has placed very low requirements to preliminary investigation. A vast number of violations have been committed! I can’t remember so many infractions for my longstanding work with law enforcement authorities.»

 Journalist: «During the process, a lot of motions were presented by counsels for the defendants and affected party. But for some reasons they have not been sustained by the court. What do you think? Why?»

Aleksandr Grigorievich: «I know exactly that all essential motions in this case had to be sustained. Essential motion means a motion that promotes investigation of the truth, corresponds to the principles of relevancy, admissibility, reliability and adequacy. At the same time, sustaining by the court of the unjustified petition of the prosecutor to terminate the judicial investigation and proceed to judicial pleadings perplexes me greatly. This petition was presented at the peak of the trial when new facts requiring verification had been identified, and when contradictions between the testimony of defendants and witnesses became sharp... It was an open field for work, but the prosecutor said - everything must be terminated, and the court, unfortunately, agreed with this.»[12]

As we see, when assessing the situation from lawyer's eyesight, Aleksandr Grigorievich demonstrated fairness, and none of his statements was positive or negative in respect of defendants or victims. He exercised professional restraint and political delicacy which distinguish him; although I’m sure he had his own opinion of this terrible event. He acted, as every true judge who appreciates the fundamental principles of justice would have acted in this situation. With his behavior he sets a good example for today’s lawyers. Now, we often become witnesses how lawyers, prosecutors, investigators and judges, like they compete with each other, right and left give emotional interviews to mass media regarding criminal and civil cases under investigation and examination, gaining doubtful popularity.

One of the recent papers by Aleksandr Grigorievich which become our heritage was his article devoted to the issues of the jury trial institution, «Whether Refusal to Sustain a Petition Concerning Consideration of the Shanyrak Case by Jury Trial is Justified». Notwithstanding that, this issue was studied only through the prism of one criminal case; this work touched very important aspects of procedural rules for consideration of criminal cases in a jury trial. His thoughts and findings are definitely important and essential now, because the jury trial institution in action and correct application of procedural norms ensure enforcement of rights of individuals brought to trial for commitment of especially grave crimes.

In his work Aleksandr Grigorievich, without expressing his opinion of guiltiness or innocence of Aron Atabek, the main defendant in the famous Shanyrak Case, deeply and comprehensively examined some of the provisions of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan «On Jurors» and the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter - the Code) and came to the conclusion that the court unreasonably rejected the petition to examine the case in the jury trial.

First of all, relying on the fact that the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan «On Jurors» was adopted on January 16, 2006 and this Law together with new 13 section of the Code regulating acts of a court in cases with jurors came into force on January 1, 2007, he believed that a legal investigator was obliged to fulfill the requirements of Article 546 of the Code, i.e., explain to an accused person that he/she has the right to trial by jury, because only at this stage of criminal proceedings the accused person is entitled to express his or her will regarding consideration of the case by jurors. Although the preliminary investigation was completed at the end of 2006, the Law «On Jurors» and amendments to the Code (section 13) were adopted and came into force on January 1, 2007. In case of a petition from the defendant or his/her refusal, the legal investigator had to document this fact in the protocol of investigation completion. Meanwhile, for formal reasons the investigator failed to do so. It was obvious that the case would be considered by the court after these legislative innovations had come into force.

In addition, Aleksandr Grigorievich found it logical that on the same grounds the prosecutor would have required the investigator to undertake these procedural actions because the investigation had been completed after adoption of the new legal acts, which came into force at the stage of this case acceptance by the court.

Finally, based on the fact that the court rejected the petition of the defendant to trial by jury, making reference to the fact that the defendant had to notify about this during preliminary investigation, without taking into account the fact that the investigator had not explained to the defendant his right to trial by jury, Aleksandr Grigorievich believed that the court in this case completely ignored the existing methods of legal provisions interpretation, in particular, a systemic and logical interpretation.[13]

Of course, you can agree or disagree with the position of Aleksandr Grigorievich as to application of jury trial provisions to this particular case, but it should be noted that this man was always committed to more democratic and progressive position than most of his colleagues. Protection of rights and lawful interests of citizens were always dominant for him, regardless of their legal status. And his position with respect to the famous Shanyrak Case proves again the fact that Aleksandr Grigorievich had such fine qualities as sympathy, impartiality, correctness. And all this was combined with profound knowledge and unique abilities.

It is impossible to set aside the role of Aleksandr Grigorievich in preparation and adoption of resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Kazakh SSR in the period from 1962 to 1989. No resolution of the Plenum, especially on issues relating to enforcement of criminal law, was adopted without the active participation of Aleksandr Grigorievich. Without detracting the merits of other judges and heads of the Supreme Court of Kazakh SSR of that period, I should note that A.G. Pushechnikov was the «chief editor» of almost all resolutions of the Plenum on criminal issues. During his work as the First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Kazakh SSR, there were adopted important resolutions which promoted formation of the uniform court practice. Among others the following resolutions should be mentioned: «On judicial practice in cases of looting and robbery» dated December 7, 1961, No. 5; «On some issues arising in judicial practice in cases of concealment promised in advance and misprision of crime» dated December 24, 1976, No. 5, «On judicial practice in cases of theft» dated June 28, 1985, No. 5; «On judicial practice in cases involving application of the antidrug legislation» dated October 10, 1986, No. 16; «On judicial practice in cases of juvenile crimes and their involvement in criminal activity or other anti-social activities» dated December 19, 1986, No. 19; «On measures to eliminate facts of unreasonable conviction of citizens and practice of compensation for damage inflicted by unlawful criminal prosecution and conviction» dated February 23, 1987, No. 2; «On judicial practice of relief from criminal liability and punishment» dated October 2, 1987, No. 8, «On judicial practice in cases of crimes representing survival of local customs» dated October 2, 1987, No. 9. These regulatory resolutions of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan were the fundamental acts promoting establishment of law and order in the country, and this was a great personal achievement of Aleksandr Grigorievich.

In conclusion, I would like to note once again that this article is dedicated to the cherished memory of Aleksandr Grigorievich and his creative heritage, and let it be my belated thanks for those life lessons he gave me and several generations of lawyers in Kazakhstan.

Zhumageldy Yelyubayev,

Lawyer and former judge of

the Supreme Court of

the Republic of Kazakhstan

[1] © All exclusive copyright to this work reserved by Zh.S.Yelyubaev.

[2] A.G. Pushechnikov, Problems of Public Prejudice in Soviet Criminal Law. // Collected Papers of the Law Department of Kazan University. // Kazan. - 1953, p. 256-271 (in Russian).

[3] A.G. Pushechnikov, Issues of Public Participation in Struggle with Crimes and Offenses, Memoirs of the Kazakh State University No.6, Alma-Ata, 1960, p. 235-239 (in Russian).

[4] A.G. Pushechnikov and B.P. Timokhovich, Community and Struggle against Crime, Kazakh State Publishing House, Alma-Ata, 1960 (in Russian).

[5] Hereinafter the author of this article gives the names of states that existed at the time when A.G. Pushechnikov wrote his scientific papers.

[6] A.G. Pushechnikov, Some Matters of Judicial Practice in Cases of Petty Theft (based on materials of Kazakh SSR), Memoirs of the Institute of Philosophy and Law, the Academy of Sciences of Kazakh SSR, Volume III, Academy of Sciences of Kazakh SSR, Alma-Ata, 1958 (in Russian).

[7] A.G. Pushechnikov, The Defense against Criminal Assault, Minsk, 1977 (in Russian).

[8] A.G. Pushechnikov, Necessary Defense under the Soviet Criminal Law, Publishing House «Kazakhstan», Alma-Ata, 1979 (in Russian).

[9] Comments to the Criminal Code of Kazakh SSR, edited by G.F. Polenov, B.S. Beissenov, V.N. Markelov, A.G. Pushechnikov and others, 2^nd edition, revised and enlarged, Alma-Ata, 1980 (in Russian).

[10] A.G. Pushechnikov, Liability for Falsification of Reports, Publishing House «Kazakhstan», Main office of social and political literature, Alma-Ata, 1984 (in Russian).

[11] Information Bulletin of Events in Central Asia «Free Asia», web site: www.webcache.googleusercontent.com, January 20, 2011.

[12] Newspaper «Azat», Issue 32(174), September 14, 2006.

[13] Whether Refusal to Sustain a Petition Concerning Consideration of the Shanyrak Case by Jury Trial is Justified, Newspaper «Shanyrak Aynasy», No. 2 (02), February 26, 2007.