docs/research/history-kazakhstan-soviet-2026-10-25.md +159 −0
@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+# Kazakhstan: the use offence, labour institutions and the 1998 code
+
+Reviewed 25 October 2026. Five new history entries, two new articles and a
+correction to the current profile’s conviction-status paragraph. This continues
+the preceding Kazakhstan pass by filling the largest missing stages before 2011.
+All existing history objects and all current segment scores are preserved.
+
+## Sources and passages actually read
+
+Local excerpts, downloads, verification helpers and logs are in
+`tmp/history-kazakhstan-soviet-2026-10-25/`.
+
+- **Kazakh SSR Criminal Code, final 1997 consolidation**, Uchet reproduction
+ of the official legislation database, `K590002000_`: read articles 2,
+ 212-1, 213, 213-1–213-3, 214–214-2 and 215-1 with amendment notes. The notes
+ date the addition of the repeat-small-possession/use offence to **30 July
+ 1987**, and its later amendment to **21 June 1991**. They date several earlier
+ drug provisions to **21 February 1975**, rather than the Union decree’s 1974
+ date. The five-year named-hemp growing maximum in the final text comes from
+ its 1987 rewrite. The final text is not treated as the original 1959 code.
+- **1991 Law 694-XII**, PRG’s publicly readable earlier-edition reproduction,
+ document 3000578: read sections I–V, especially I, II(1)(4), II(4)(1), III
+ and V. The page identifies the edition before July 1992 amendments but also
+ carries later repeal annotations. Its malformed catalogue label “edition
+ 05.10.1990” is not adopted as the act’s date. The heading, text and matching
+ later record identify **21 June 1991**. The law commences on publication;
+ the publication record gives Vedomosti 1991, No. 26, article 348, without a
+ verified publication day, so the event uses **1991**.
+- **Early national Criminal Code**, PRG document 3008032, public page 9:
+ complete articles 259–262 read. The edition incorporates July 1998 changes
+ and precedes July 1999 changes. Personal acquisition/keeping in article
+ 259(1) requires a **large quantity** and carries up to three years; other
+ manufacture, transport and supply are separately covered. Ordinary growing
+ offers a 500–700 calculation-unit or income-based fine or up to two years;
+ aggravated growing remains three to eight years. The old repeat-small-
+ possession crime has no counterpart in this replacement drug chapter.
+- **Commencement Law 168/1997**, Uchet `Z970000168_`: read articles 1–3. It
+ expressly starts the new code and repeals the old code on **1 January 1998**,
+ requires retrospective review of beneficial changes and closes cases for
+ decriminalised conduct. Article 4’s later consolidated dates for deferred
+ punishments are not presented as the original commencement schedule.
+- **2006 Law 123**, complete CDB reproduction: read article 1(221), inserting
+ public-use article 336-2, and article 2. Original penalties are **one to two
+ calculation units**, then **five to ten** for repetition within a year.
+ There is no detention tier. The law was signed **20 January 2006** but
+ declares commencement from **1 January 2006**. The event uses year precision
+ and states both facts. This is not evidence that new punitive liability was
+ lawfully enforced retroactively before signature/publication.
+- **2010 Law 372-IV**, PRG public pages 1–2, document 30912334: read article
+ 1(3)(4), the replacement public-use offence, and article 2’s commencement.
+ First fine **five units**, repeat **ten**, then **fifteen days’ detention**
+ after two earlier public-use penalties in a year. The separately opened
+ publication record 30912337 lists *Kazakhstanskaya Pravda*, **11 January
+ 2011**; the law requires ten calendar days after first official publication.
+ The event uses **2011-01**, distinguishing commencement from the December
+ signing date and allowing for publication-date precision limits.
+- **Repealed national Administrative Code**, Uchet `K010000155_`: complete
+ article 336-2 and its 2006/2010 amendment annotations read. The older
+ Pavlodar July 2009 consolidation independently shows its fine-only tier.
+- **Current Criminal Code**, kodeksy-kz.com articles **10, 79 and 296**:
+ operative text read, showing October 2026 checks. Ordinary and large personal
+ holdings carry the lesser-criminal-offence penalties, while especially-large
+ holdings carry three to seven years’ imprisonment. Article 79(2) expressly
+ treats a person convicted of a lesser criminal offence as having no
+ *sudimost*, the formal status used for recidivism and sentencing. The 2015
+ opening code’s article 79, retained locally from the preceding pass, agrees.
+- **Zakon.kz, 28 August 2026**: read the report linked in the existing profile,
+ including the proposed decriminalisation and the reported ministry figures.
+ The report loosely describes a conviction-status consequence that conflicts
+ with article 79’s express exception. The profile follows the statute. No
+ cannabis-specific counts are inferred from the reported all-drug figures.
+
+Direct Adilet requests frequently timed out or returned application shells.
+Uchet exposed the older codes, while CDB and PRG exposed the amendment texts.
+PRG’s public early-edition pages supplied the relevant passages without requiring
+sign-in. The final-code page on Continent was also read for orientation; its
+missing amendment annotations made Uchet preferable. Search summaries were
+research leads, not the basis of the checked claims above.
+
+## What the 1991 reform actually abolished
+
+The law ordered closure of the Interior Ministry’s treatment-and-labour and
+youth institutions, release of people held there, release from punishment for
+escape or non-prescribed use, clearance of their conviction status and closure
+of pending cases. It expressly followed the Soviet constitutional oversight
+committee’s October 1990 review. General drug-use penalties were removed from
+both criminal and administrative legislation; repeat small possession remained.
+
+Do not describe this as abolishing every form of compulsory treatment. Section
+II also preserves a separate judicial treatment power alongside a criminal
+sentence. The article states that distinction. No completion date, actual
+release count or claim that every cannabis prisoner was freed is supplied.
+
+## Scores and date precision
+
+Current exact score stays **13.5**, displayed **14**. No current scored segment,
+status, summary or penalty paragraph changes. Only `context.consequences`, its
+source list, two source records and the profile review date are edited. The
+blanket criminal-record claim is replaced with the statutory *sudimost*
+distinction. The unsupported narcological-register clause is removed: the cited
+report does not establish it, and no replacement health-registration rule was
+verified in this pass. Criminal proceedings and an institutional record of a
+case must not be confused with that formal conviction status.
+
+The new historical snapshots separate these stages:
+
+| Stage | Possession | Cultivation | Enforcement | Sharing | Consumption | Access | Exact total after |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
+| Earliest aggregate, now before the 1987 event | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6.5 |
+| 1987 repeat-use crime | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.5 |
+| 1991 repeal of use penalties | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 8.5 |
+| 1998 code | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 13.5 |
+| January 2011 public-use detention | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 12.5 |
+| 2011 large-possession reform | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 14.5 |
+| 2015 criminal public-use offence | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 13.5 |
+
+Consumption **1→0** records the separate repeat-use crime in 1987; **0→3**
+records its 1991 repeal and the removal of the administrative use offence.
+Level 3 is a conservative private-use classification, not a claim to unrestricted
+public consumption. The 2006 public-place fine remains unscored because that
+coarse level already covers private use with public restrictions; detention
+lowers it **3→2** in January 2011. The existing **2→1** step remains in 2015.
+
+The 1998 possession **1→2** change records disappearance of the old repeat-
+small-possession crime, and cultivation **0→1** the lesser ordinary growing
+penalty. Small administrative possession could still involve detention, so it
+is not assigned the fine-only level 3. Enforcement’s inherited 2011 improvement
+remains where the preceding pass documented it; no new sentencing-frequency
+claim is introduced here.
+
+**The early aggregate remains provisional.** The 1935 FREE vector is unchanged,
+but its implied after-value follows the new earliest snapshot. Neither the
+original pre-1975 possession provisions nor the exact 1975 implementation text
+was recovered. The 1935 growing decree does not establish when every other
+segment first became restricted. Do not interpret these new steps as a completed
+first-ban reconstruction, or copy a Russian/republican 1974 date into Kazakhstan
+without the actual territorial instrument. Original 1959/1975 texts and the
+original 1987 amendment remain priorities; the latter is currently documented
+through code annotations plus the express 1991 deletion of its use wording.
+
+## Validation
+
+Five additions are checked against the read sources. All pre-existing history
+objects remain structurally identical. Both new articles have 350–500 words,
+four sections, inline citations and verified history/country links. A local
+verifier checks citations, references, unchanged country scores/segments and
+all untouched context sections. Production build, regression-suite and rendered
+results are recorded after completion. Existing staged and working-tree source-
+archive edits remain outside this batch’s commit.
+
+Final validation passed: **36 history tests and 6 answer/profile tests**, a
+**4,105-page** production build and **75 rendered citation links** with valid
+reference targets. History/tag links, clean JSON/CSV, the corrected profile
+paragraph and unchanged current exact score 13.5 were checked. The annual API
+correctly retains the last 2011 value; the separate January step remains in
+history exports. Desktop previews of both articles and a mobile preview of the
+1991 article were visually inspected. `git diff --check` passed. Only the owned
+temporary site output is removed after verification; source excerpts, helpers,
+logs and preview screenshots remain local.
… 1 more lines