Stalking in Kazakhstan: Why People Have Only Started Talking About It Now
Until recently, stalking in Kazakhstan was widely perceived as something more typical of movies, TV dramas, or social media discussions than of everyday life.
Persistent phone calls, dozens of messages, or being followed near one’s home or workplace were often not seen as a serious threat. Such behavior was frequently excused with phrases like “he just can’t let go,” “he’s just being too persistent in courting her,” or “that’s how he shows his feelings.” But in recent years, attitudes toward this issue have begun to change, and on September 16, 2025, amendments came into force in Kazakhstan, introducing a separate Article 115-1, “Stalking,” into the Criminal Code.
Under this article, stalking is defined as the unlawful pursuit of a person, expressed in attempts to establish contact with and/or track them against their will, without the use of violence, but causing substantial harm.
What Exactly Is Considered Stalking?
In practice, stalking is not limited to following someone on the street. Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs includes repeated phone calls, constant messaging, intrusive attempts to establish contact, harassment through social media, and other actions against a person’s will in this category. Official explanations also state that stalking may include threats, insults, defamation, online surveillance, reading private correspondence, monitoring through cameras, and GPS trackers. All of this causes fear, anxiety, and a sense of insecurity.
For a long time, society did not view stalking as a separate problem for several reasons. First, many people still held the dangerous belief that persistence is almost normal, especially in the context of former relationships or attempts to “win over” someone’s attention. Second, psychological harm was often underestimated: if there were no bruises or obvious physical violence, it was assumed that there was no serious problem. Third, before a separate article appeared in the law, it was harder for people to explain exactly what was happening to them and why it deserved a legal response.
The introduction of a clear legal norm helped call the problem by its proper name, and this matters not only for the police and courts, but also for the victims themselves.
What Changed After the Law Was Adopted?
In reality, stalking is not about feelings and not about “love that is too strong.” Its purpose is control, intrusion into another person’s personal boundaries, and forcing one’s presence upon them. The Ministry of Internal Affairs directly emphasizes that such actions cause serious harm to personal safety and psychological well-being.
Stalking causes fear, stress, and anxiety about one’s life and health, and in some cases may escalate into more serious crimes, including violence, bodily harm, or property damage.
The introduction of Article 115-1 showed that the state no longer regards intrusive harassment as something minor or as “a private story between two people.” The penalties for stalking include a fine of up to 200 monthly calculation indices (MCI), community service for up to 200 hours, or arrest for up to 50 days.
If the harassment is accompanied by violence, threats, blackmail, or the unlawful dissemination of information about a person’s private life, the acts are additionally classified under other articles of the Criminal Code. In this way, the law established an important principle: the answer “no” must be respected unconditionally, and the right to privacy and safety does not depend on whether the people involved had a relationship in the past.
Is the Law Working in Practice?
Judging by the initial data, the new provision has not remained merely on paper. The Ministry of Internal Affairs reported that since the criminalization of stalking, 51 cases have been sent to court, and in 36 of them the suspects were placed in temporary detention facilities.
The agency also noted separately that investigations of such cases are under the ministry’s supervision, and that before the article came into force, preparatory work had been carried out: methodological guidelines were developed and staff training was conducted. This is an important indication that the law does not merely exist formally, but is actually being enforced: complaints are recorded, materials are investigated, suspects are detained, and cases are transferred to court.
There are also already specific examples showing that people are in fact being held accountable. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in the West Kazakhstan Region, a former husband systematically stalked a woman, continued calling and messaging her even after being blocked and after she changed her number, came to her place of residence and threatened her; the court found him guilty and sentenced him to 100 hours of community service.
In Astana, another man stalked a woman for six months, came to her workplace and home, filmed her without consent, and the court also found him guilty: he was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and ordered to pay compensation for moral harm. Moreover, because he violated the terms of a previously imposed restriction of freedom, the unserved part of that sentence was replaced with actual imprisonment. In Semey, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, another man who had been following a girl for a long time was also brought to justice.
What This Says About Society’s Attitude
The fact that people have started talking about stalking only now is connected not only to the new law, but also to a gradual change in the public understanding of personal boundaries. More and more people understand that intrusive harassment is not “a sign of attention,” not “persistence,” and not “a family drama,” but a real threat to a person’s safety and psychological well-being. When someone is forced to live in fear, change their phone number, avoid familiar routes, or be afraid to leave home, this is no longer about feelings; it is about a violation of rights and freedoms.
Stalking in Kazakhstan has become a visible topic only now because society and the state have finally begun to see it not as everyday intrusiveness, but as a real threat. The new article in the Criminal Code gave this problem a clear legal definition, and the first results of its application show that the law is genuinely working: cases are being registered, reaching the courts, and perpetrators are being punished.
This means that intrusive harassment is no longer considered something that should simply be “tolerated” or “kept private.” It is a violation of personal boundaries, privacy, and safety, for which specific liability is now provided.


