Law. Human. Environment

Features of criminal proceedings regarding the interaction between probation services and national security agencies

Kynatbek Smanaliev, Toktosun Sabyrov, Aina Aiazbekova, Alima Kalygulova, Bakyt Kakeshov
Download article
Abstract

The relevance of the study was determined by the need to ensure a balance between the resocialisation of offenders and the objectives of countering threats to state security, in the context of increasing risks of radicalisation in the Kyrgyz Republic. The aim of the article was a comprehensive study of the mechanisms of interaction between probation services and national security agencies in the criminal proceedings of Kyrgyzstan. The methodology was based on a combination of comparative legal, structural-functional, and systems approaches, which allowed for a comparison of national legislation with international standards and the identification of features of practical application. The analysis established that the legal foundations of the probation institution created the necessary prerequisites for its development; however, issues regarding the procedures for information exchange with security agencies remained unresolved. It was found that at the pre-trial stage, probation reports played a key role, while the activities of security agencies focused on preventive monitoring. During the execution of sentences, emphasis was placed on individual resocialisation plans and monitoring of digital activity. At the post-penitentiary stage, preventive measures and social support were of central importance. An analysis of procedural risks demonstrated that the most significant threats were asymmetric access to information, duplication of restrictive measures, and the negative impact of excessive control on the process of social adaptation. The effectiveness of interaction was determined by the level of standardisation of information exchange procedures, the development of professional competencies among probation personnel, and the adaptation of international standards into national legislation. This provided the study with practical significance in the form of recommendations for improving cooperation, applicable for use by law enforcement agencies, the academic community, and policymakers in the field of criminal proceedings

Keywords

procedural risks; standardisation; monitoring; resocialisation programmes; individual plans; social support; digital activity

Suggested citation
Smanaliev, K., Sabyrov, T., Aiazbekova, A., Kalygulova, A., & Kakeshov, B. (2026). Features of criminal proceedings regarding the interaction between probation services and national security agencies. Law. Human. Environment, 17(1), 190-213. https://doi.org/10.31548/law/1.2026.190
References
  1. Agusta, D., Madjid, A., & Aprilianda, N. (2025). Reforming Indonesian criminal law: Integrating supervision, punishment, and rehabilitation for restorative justice. International Journal of Islamic Education, Research and Multiculturalism, 7(1), 54-68. doi: 10.47006/ijierm.v7i1.434.
  2. Amnesty International. (2023). Amnesty International Report 2022/23. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/WEBPOL1056702023ENGLISH.pdf.
  3. Asghar, U., Bhatti, S.H., & Andan, S.M. (2022). The criminal justice system in Pakistan: A critical study. Global Legal Studies Review, 7(1), 1-9. doi: 10.31703/glsr.2022(VII-I).01.
  4. Bałandynowicz, A. (2025). The philosophy of probation in the Polish penal system. In B. Kaucz (Ed.), Polish contributions to criminology (pp. 129-188). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-94142-9_6.
  5. Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: Constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139035293.
  6. Borta, E. (2025). Current trends in improvement of regulations regarding the institution of conditional release before the term. Legea şi Viaţa, 5, 691-697.
  7. Council of Europe. (2010). Handbook for prison and probation services regarding radicalisation and violent extremism. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16806f9aa9.
  8. Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2021, October). Retrieved from https://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/3-38/edition/2087/ru.
  9. Criminal Enforcement Code of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2017, January). Retrieved from https://continent-online.com/Document/?doc_id=36120659.
  10. Criminal Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2021, June). Retrieved from https://mvd.gov.kg/rus/ministry/normative-bases/23.
  11. Danglades, D., & Laudic-Baron, E. (2024). Navigating criminal justice cooperation: A French perspective on EU framework decisions. European Journal of Probation, 16(1), 93-104. doi: 10.1177/20662203241247668.
  12. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (2016, April). Retrieved from https://gdpr-info.eu/.
  13. Hailemariam, M., Rosen, R.K., Sneed, R., Brown, G., Clark, K.J., Mackey, B., Eshetu, H., Taxman, F.S., & Johnson, J.E. (2025). Use of data-driven decision-making among agencies serving individuals with criminal-legal system involvement: A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 25(1), 1138. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-13385-2.
  14. Hanslmaier, M., Ghanem, C., Graebsch, C., & Lutz, T. (2025). Selective punitiveness among social work students: A longitudinal study. Probation Journal, 72(4), 383-405. doi: 10.1177/02645505251364173.
  15. Harris, R. (2022). Crime, criminal justice and the probation service. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003310556.
  16. Human Rights Watch. (2023). Kyrgyzstan – security service powers. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/kyrgyzstan.
  17. Iannacci, F., Simeonova, B., & Kawalek, P. (2022). Investigating the determinants of inter-organizational information sharing within criminal justice: A context-mechanism-outcome approach. Journal of Information Technology, 37(2), 188-208. doi: 10.1177/02683962211013826.
  18. Jones, N.P., Lundberg, R., & O’Deane, M. (2023). A mixed methods social network analysis of San Diego law enforcement task forces and agencies. International Journal of Police Science, 2(1). doi: 10.56331/ijps.v2i1.7573.
  19. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 28901/95 “Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom”. (2000, February). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58496.
  20. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 70078/12 “Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria”. (2022, January). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-214673.
  21. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Case Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04 “S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom”. (2008, December). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-117816.
  22. Klaus, J.F. (1998). Handbook on the management of violent extremist prisoners and the prevention of radicalization to violence in prisons. TurIn United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute.
  23. Kuldysheva, G., Shapaeva, V., Suranbaev, K., Batyrbaev, B., & Osmanova, A. (2025). Analysis of penal enforcement systems in the context of probation: International experience and practice of implementation. International E-Journal of Criminal Sciences, 20, 4. doi: 10.1387/inecs.27337.
  24. Laird, R. (2021). Regional international juvenile incarceration models as a blueprint for rehabilitative reform of juvenile criminal justice systems in the United States. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 111, 571-603.
  25. Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 34 “On Probation”. (2017, February). Retrieved from https://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/111517/edition/1103351/ru.
  26. Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 57 “On National Security Agencies”. (2022, July). Retrieved from https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=34962290.
  27. Malizia, N. (2021). Adult inmates: Probationary assignment to social services as an alternative measure to detention for re-education and re-socialization: A statistical survey in Italy. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 11(4), 149-159. doi: 10.29322/IJSRP.11.04.2021.P11219.
  28. Martín, A.N. (2022). Global criminal law. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-84831-6.
  29. Moffa, S., Perna, A., Cattolico, A., Sellitto, C., Ascione, A., Tafuri, D., Guerra, G., & Lucariello, A. (2021). Evaluations of muscular strength, ability to balance and health status in prisoners during covid-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4316. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18084316.
  30. Nafid, Y., Haidass, M.A., & Joraiche, S. (2024). The role of criminal alternatives as a future challenge in achieving security. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 19(1), 552-586.
  31. National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic. (2026). Criminal. Retrieved from https://www.stat.gov.kg/en/statistics/prestupnost/.
  32. Nauatov, Z., Smatov, Z., Ismanov, T., & Kulalieva, G. (2024). Investigating terrorism acts in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan: Theory, practice, and methodological insights from the practice of investigative bodies of the prosecutor’s office. Universidad y Sociedad, 16(2), 517-523.
  33. Nursaliyeva, G., Baikenzhina, K., Kalmaganbetova, D., Balgimbekova, G., Seitzhanova, N., & Kussainova, L. (2023). Methodology for the legislative application of evaluative categories in criminal law. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(5), article number e0725. doi: 10.55908/sdgs.v11i5.725.
  34. Nurіdіn, S., Ongarbayev, Y., Murаtkhаnоvа, M., Kаlmаgаnbеtоvа, D., & Yеssеntеmіrоva, A. (2025). Analysis of the institution of parole in the context of criminal law theory and practice. Rivista Di Studi Sulla Sostenibilita, 1, 105-123. doi: 10.3280/riss2025oa19392.
  35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2024). Baseline report of the fifth round of monitoring of anti-corruption reforms in Kyrgyzstan. Paris: OECD.
  36. Peled-Laskov, R., & Taxman, F.S. (2024). International perspective on treatment as part of probation/parole. In I. Durnescu, J.M. Byrne, B.J. Mackey & F.S. Taxman (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook on Global Community Corrections (pp. 553-582). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003305149.
  37. Rocha, P. (2025). Understanding the impact of organizational culture on interagency efforts in offender rehabilitation. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior. doi: 10.1108/IJOTB-10-2024-0211.
  38. Sabbe, M., Moyson, S., & Schiffino, N. (2021). Citizen‐agency versus state‐agency at the frontline in prisons and probation services: A systematic literature review. Social Policy & Administration, 55(1), 206-225. doi: 10.1111/spol.12633.
  39. Sasko, O., Shvedova, H., Orobets, K., Ovcharenko, & R., Ostapenko, O. (2026). Criminal offence during martial law in Ukraine: peculiarities of qualification. Bangladesh Journal of Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, 11(1), 13-22. doi: 10.46281/bjmsr.v11i1.2658.
  40. Shadymanova, J., Musaeva, N., Orosaliev, E., & Omurakunova, C. (2023). Kyrgyzstan: Social work and health in the penitentiary system. In U. Pape, H. Stöver & I. Michels (Eds.), Social work and health in prisons (pp. 101-128). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
  41. Štimac, Z., & Aslanova, I. (2021). The role of securitization in the relationship between state and religion – The example of the Kyrgyz Republic. In A. Mihr (Ed.), Between peace and conflict in the East and the West: Studies on transformation and development in the OSCE Region (pp. 117-137). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-77489-9_6.
  42. Todosiev, D., & Ricijaš, N. (2021). Probation in Europe: Croatia. Utrecht: Confederation of European Probation.
  43. U.S. Department of State. (2026). Country reports on terrorism 2023: Kyrgyz Republic. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2023/kyrgyz-republic.
  44. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2023). Analytical report on probation management – Recommendations for the development of sustainable probation services in the Kyrgyz Republic. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/roca/uploads/documents/2023/ANALYTICAL_REPORT_on_probation_management_recommendations_for_the_development_of_sustainable_probation_services_in_the_Kyrgyz_Republic.pdf.
  45. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules). (1990, December). Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/united-nations-standard-minimum-rules-non-custodial-measures.
  46. Wangara, A.K. (2024). The relationship between private security service providers and national security organs in crime prevention in Lurambi sub-county, Kenya. International Journal of African and Asian Studies, 83, 43-62. doi: 10.7176/JAAS/83-05.
  47. Waring, S., Taylor, E., Giles, S., Almond, L., & Gidman, V. (2022). “Dare to Share”: Improving information sharing and risk assessment in multiteam systems managing offender probation. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, article number 869673. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.869673.
  48. Warraich, K.M., & Butt, J.S. (2024). Revealing the economic consequences of prosecution failures within Pakistan’s criminal justice systems: A focus on ethical considerations, with comparative insights from Norway. Minhaj International Journal of Economics and Organization Sciences, 4(1). doi: 10.58932/MULE0022.