A comparative legal analysis of the process of complaints by the Ombudsman institute in the Republic of Kazakhstan and Türkiye

Abstract

The aim of the article is to conduct a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of the procedures for reviewing citizens' complaints under the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Türkiye. This comparative legal study of the ombudsman institutions in both countries allows for a scientific analysis of their functional characteristics, legal status, and methodological differences in the complaint review process. The article examines the complaint review process, types of decisions, and the procedure and liability for failure to implement the ombudsman's recommendations. According to the legislative framework and academic literature, Türkiye follows the classical model of parliamentary oversight, while the Kazakh institution represents a model of human rights protection that combines mixed (presidential-parliamentary) and constitutional oversight mechanisms. The legal status of the ombudsmen in both countries is enshrined in the Constitution. A comparative legal analysis revealed that for a complaint to be considered by the Turkish ombudsman, a citizen must exhaust all administrative procedures, whereas under Kazakhstani law, appeals to the ombudsman do not require special procedures. Based on the annual reports of the ombudsmen of Kazakhstan and Türkiye, a statistical analysis of citizen appeals was conducted from 2013 to 2024. A comparative chart of the number of appeals to the ombudsman institutions of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Türkiye from 2013 to 2024 shows that Türkiye has experienced a gradual increase with minor fluctuations, while Kazakhstan has seen a significant increase since 2021. This study confirms that the ombudsman institution is not simply a mechanism for collecting administrative complaints, but a state body that guarantees the human right to access to justice.