The sister of one of the men convicted of violent sodomy and sentenced to 8 years in prison has contacted the editorial team at FBRC. She claims her brother is innocent, and that the case is built on police pressure and weak evidence.
We have examined the available materials and explain what is confirmed by documents and what remains, for now, only the relative's account.
WHAT THE VERDICT SAYS
The incident took place in the village of Barlebai in the Aktogay district of the Pavlodar region. According to the investigation, late in the evening of 27 October 2025, two local residents – Damir Saidildin and Eric Zhamalidenov – went to the home of an acquaintance and, following a conflict, subjected him to violent sexual acts. Both men denied this account during the investigation and in court.
The police were not informed immediately. According to witness testimony in court, the victim first told a female neighbour about the incident, then the local akim (village head), and only on 13 November was the case officially registered as a criminal matter. In passing sentence, the court specifically noted this delay and issued two separate rulings – one addressed to the akimat's office and one to the police – stating that officials were aware of the incident beforehand but failed to take timely action.
On 20 May 2026, the court of first instance found both men guilty under Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan ("Sodomy committed by a group of individuals") and sentenced each to 8 years in a penal colony. The sentence is not yet final: the prosecutor's office has appealed, seeking to increase the sentence to 10 years, deeming the punishment too lenient. Separately, the sister of one of the convicted men has submitted a request to the Supreme Court for a full review of the case.
WHAT THE EXPERTISE SAYS
A forensic medical examination, conducted approximately three weeks after the alleged incident, found no injuries on the victim whatsoever. The only trauma – a graze on the nose – according to the expert's conclusion, occurred just a few days before the examination itself. The expert explained the lack of other traces by stating that a single sexual act may not leave injuries.
The genetic analysis was even less conclusive. DNA belonging to the victim himself and an unidentified male, but not the convicted men, was found on the victim's sheet and underwear, which were also seized weeks after the incident. The expert acknowledged in court that this genetic trace could have appeared long before the incident and might not be related to the case. No sperm samples were taken from the accused – only blood was compared, which is a much less precise method.
In essence, the verdict rests almost entirely on the victim's testimony and circumstantial evidence – the forensic medical examination and genetic analysis do not confirm the direct involvement of the convicted men.
WHAT THE CONVICTED MAN'S SISTER SAYS
The sister of the convicted man claims that her brother and his acquaintance were subjected to psychological pressure, the unlawful use of physical force, and demands for money during their detention at the police station.
The FBRC editorial team has in its possession a video recording from the corridor of the police department dated 13 November 2025, which captures shouting and foul language.
At the same time, a separate investigation into possible extortion of money by police officers in this case was already conducted and was dropped "due to lack of proof". However, it is recorded in the court materials that one police officer confirmed receiving a money transfer from the convicted man and subsequently passing it on to a colleague.
This does not prove the sister's account of systematic extortion, but neither does it allow her words to be dismissed as unfounded.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The prosecutor's appeal and the request to the Supreme Court are being considered in parallel – the outcome will determine whether the sentence comes into force in its current form, is made more severe, or whether the case is sent back for a new trial.
The expert analyses do not directly confirm the involvement of the convicted men, and the court itself documented violations in the registration of the crime report – this is grounds for a higher court to examine the case more carefully.
FBRC will return to this story following the decision on the appeal or the ruling from the Supreme Court.
