Procedural Transformation of Digital Evidence in Human Trafficking Cases: A Doctrinal Analysis of Kazakhstan’s Evidentiary Framework

Procedural Transformation of Digital Evidence in Human Trafficking Cases: A Doctrinal Analysis of Kazakhstan’s Evidentiary Framework

Authors

  • Assem Alimkhanova Law Enforcement Academy under the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15575/kh.v8i2.52664

Keywords:

Admissibility, digital evidence, human trafficking, Kazakhstan, procedural transformation

Abstract

Human trafficking increasingly generates operational, documentary, and digital information, yet the availability of such information does not necessarily determine whether it can function as evidence in criminal proceedings. This study aims to examine the evidentiary structure of human trafficking proceedings in Kazakhstan by identifying the circumstances that must be proved, analysing how operational-investigative information acquires evidentiary value, and assessing the legal treatment of digital evidence. The study employs a normative/doctrinal legal research design based on primary legal materials, including Kazakhstan’s Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Law on Operational Investigations, Law on Countering Human Trafficking, Digital Code, and relevant Supreme Court normative interpretations. The materials were analysed through three sequential stages: normative identification of circumstances subject to proof, procedural analysis of the transformation of investigative information into evidence, and a lex lata–gap–risk–lex ferenda analysis of digital evidence. The findings show that, first, the structure of proof in trafficking cases is offence-specific and multi-layered. Second, operational-investigative information and evidence capable of judicial use are not legally equivalent; evidentiary value depends on lawful procedural transformation, verification, fixation, and evaluation. Third, Kazakhstan already recognises various forms of digital information, but the applicable rules remain fragmented with respect to authentication, attribution, integrity, preservation, the digital chain of custody, and cross-border electronic evidence. The study implies the need for more coherent procedural guidance and digital forensic safeguards without weakening existing admissibility standards. Its originality lies in developing the concept of procedural transformation and integrating substantive proof requirements, investigative information, and digital-forensic safeguards into a hybrid evidentiary model for human trafficking proceedings.

References

Bjelland, H. F. (2020). Conceptions of success: Understandings of successful policing of human trafficking. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(3), 712–725. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pay073

Dandurand, Y. (2024). Criminalizing human trafficking has not made a difference: A law enforcement failure. Journal of Human Trafficking, 10(2), 383–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322705.2024.2303266

Dandurand, Y., & Jahn, J. (2020). The failing international legal framework on migrant smuggling and human trafficking. In J. Winterdyk & J. Jones (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of human trafficking (pp. 783–800). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63058-8_47

de Vries, I., & Radford, J. (2022). Identifying online risk markers of hard-to-observe crimes through semi-inductive triangulation: The case of human trafficking in the United States. The British Journal of Criminology, 62(3), 639–658. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab077

Fouladvand, S., & Ward, T. (2023). Criminal law categories as ideological constructs: The case of human trafficking. In D. G. Scott & J. Sim (Eds.), Demystifying power, crime and social harm: The work and legacy of Steven Box (pp. 299–324). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46213-9_12

Guttman, B., White, D. R., Williams, S., & Walraven, T. (2022). Digital evidence preservation: Considerations for evidence handlers (NISTIR 8387). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8387

Hounmenou, C., & Toepp, S. (2023). Exploring private investigation agencies’ experience of collaboration with law enforcement in investigations of human trafficking cases. Societies, 13(2), Article 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13020044

Kent, K., Chevalier, S., Grance, T., & Dang, H. (2006). Guide to integrating forensic techniques into incident response (NIST Special Publication 800-86). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-86

Nastas, A. (2024). Specifics of human trafficking crime investigation. ADJURIS – International Academic Publisher.

Nichols, A. J., & Heil, E. J. (2024). An integrated model of human trafficking response in the prosecution process: Restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, survivor centered practice and anti-oppressive practice. Crime, Law and Social Change, 81(3), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-023-10114-w

Pajón, L., & Walsh, D. (2020). Proposing a theoretical framework for the criminal investigation of human trafficking crimes. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(2), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pay031

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2020). Global report on trafficking in persons 2020. United Nations.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2021). Successful strategies for addressing the use of technology to facilitate trafficking in persons and to prevent and investigate trafficking in persons (CTOC/COP/WG.4/2021/2). United Nations.

Ward, T., & Fouladvand, S. (2021). Bodies of knowledge and robes of expertise: Expert evidence about drugs, gangs and human trafficking. Criminal Law Review, 2021(6), 442–460.

Legislation, International Instruments, and Judicial Authorities

Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 231-V ZRK (2014). Adilet Legal Information System. https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/K1400000231

Digital Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 255-VIII ZRK (2026). Adilet Legal Information System. https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/K2600000255

Law on Countering Human Trafficking, Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 110-VIII LRK (2024). Adilet Legal Information System. https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/Z2400000110

Law on Electronic Document and Electronic Digital Signature, Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 370 (2003) (repealed 2026). Adilet Legal Information System. https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/Z030000370_

Law on Operational Investigations, Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 154-XIII (1994). Adilet Legal Information System. https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/Z940004000_

Penal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 226-V (2014). Adilet Legal Information System. https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/K1400000226

Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, 2237 U.N.T.S. 319 (2000).

Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2012). On practice for enforcement of the legislation establishing liability for human trafficking (Normative Decree No. 7 of December 29, 2012; as amended through November 29, 2024). Adilet Legal Information System. https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/P120000007S

Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2020). On authorization of covert investigative actions (Regulatory Resolution No. 5 of December 11, 2020). Adilet Legal Information System. https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/P200000005S

Downloads

Published

2026-09-01
Loading...