LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

. Many participants in the anti-Soviet uprisings of the Kazakhs have not yet been rehabilitated. The obstacle to this is the norms of the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which do not allow the rehabilitation of persons who participated in armed struggle and murders of representatives of the authorities and the military. At the same time, in international and national law there is such an institute as jus resistendi - the right of resistance or the right to rebellion. This legal institution enables the rehabilitation of participants of anti-Soviet uprisings due to the recognition of their natural and inalienable rights.

persons actually committed the acts of which they were subsequently accused. In addition, Article 6 of the Act fails to take into account the important legal and philosophical phenomenon of «jus resistendi», the right of people to resistance or rebellion. It is a collective global natural right, recognized as positive law at the national and international levels [1].
The right of rebellion emerged simultaneously in both the Western and Eastern legal traditions. The schools of natural law and social contract contributed greatly to the establishment of this right. The strong influence of these major legal traditions throughout the world has led to the explicit or implicit recognition of this right in constitutional laws throughout the world. The right of revolution has developed into a general principle of law, representing "the inalienable right of a people to oust its rulers, to change its system of government, or to bring about radical reforms in its system of government or institutions by force or general revolt, when lawful and constitutional methods of effecting such changes have proved inadequate or so difficult as to be unavailable" [2]. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, recognizes the right of rebellion, asserting the need for the law to protect human rights in order to ensure that man is not forced to resort, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression.
Without going into discussions about the natural or affirmative nature of the right of rebellion, we note that all experts agree that it is historically conditioned, i.e. its relevance decreases with the introduction of universal suffrage, the development of institutions of public control over the activities of the authorities (trade unions, political parties) and legal methods to protect the interests of the masses of the population [3].
An insurrection and all the formal "offenses" and "crimes" connected with it can be recognized as lawful under international law if the following criteria are met: 1. a majority of the citizens support the use of force, or at least the rebels must honestly and reasonably believe that the majority would agree to it if they knew the circumstances involved; 2. The use of force must be a last resort and must not be excessive in relation to the particular advantage expected; The Constitution of 1918 stipulated that the right to vote, both active and passive, was enjoyed only by workers, clerks, and peasants who did not use hired labor. Thus, large segments of the population classified as "exploitative," including well-to-do peasants, ministers of religion, private traders, former officials of the state apparatus were disenfranchised. In addition, unequal representation of workers and peasants was legislated. In fact, 1 vote of a townsman was equal to 5 votes of villagers. The elections were indirect, that is, the delegates to the Congress of Soviets were elected by the regional and provincial councils, and not by the population. In addition, the elections for rural inhabitants were four-stage, and for city dwellerstwo-stage.
The Resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee "On the Order of Re-election of Volost and Village Soviets" of February 12, 1918 explicitly established the control of higher authorities over elections at lower levels, prescribing that "elected bodies must be built from the center, and the cell standing above must carefully check the composition of the lower one" [5]. In addition, the higher bodies could override the results of elections at lower levels (give recusal, deprive powers, order re-elections). Thus, the elections were neither direct, nor equal, nor universal, which allowed the Bolsheviks to easily ensure the necessary composition of the congresses and make decisions profitable After coming to power, the Bolsheviks eliminated all judicial bodies, preliminary investigation agencies, the defense attorney's office, and the prosecutor's office. The new court system was created with great difficulty and many costs. Before the advent of the codified Soviet criminal legislation the courts could be guided by "revolutionary justice," i.e. they could independently determine the crime and the sanctions. The composition of the people's courts and tribunals was formed by local Soviets from persons loyal to the Bolsheviks, and in the overwhelming majority these were not qualified lawyers. In the absence of a professional defense bar, the trials became a farce, and the courts became the bodies of reprisals against real and potential opponents of the regime.
In fact, in the 20s and 30s, the lack of democracy and legal mechanisms to protect citizens from the arbitrariness of the authorities led to rampant terror, elevated to the rank of state policy. According to the Resolution of SNK "On Red Terror" dated 5.09.1918, any anti-government speech was treated as counterrevolutionary and brutally suppressed. Therefore, the population of Kazakhstan in the 20-30s of the 20th century had no legal non-violent methods of protest against the government.

SCIENTIFIC GOALS AND PURPOSES IN XXI CENTURY 214
3. The third condition is the principle of just cause. The reason for rebellion is just if the oppression consists either in a substantial violation of the constitution, or in a violation of basic human rights, or both. But what constitutes a substantial violation? As a general rule, it means that the oppression must be permanent. But it is also possible that even a single government action may constitute such serious harm to a people that it alone justifies the use of force. In any event, international law considers it permissible to use force against a government in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, because even in these cases the international community has a duty to protect the people.
Were there such causes in the 20-30s in Kazakhstan? Of course there were.
Without dwelling on all the actions of the authorities in 1919-21 and 1927-1932 in detail, we shall note that regardless of the true objectives of the main organizers of the actions of the Soviet authorities, they led to mass devastation, hunger and death of millions of people. Fundamental human rights and freedoms -the right to life, the right to liberty and security of person, the right to freedom of movement and choice of place of residence, the right to freedom of conscience, the right to freedom of speech, the right to free labor, the right to private property -were systematically violated. These reasons cannot but be recognized as just for the use of force against the government.
4. The last requirement is the principle of distinction (or discrimination), which means that the use of force must be directed against the people who have the power to stop oppression, as well as against the people who exercise that oppression. In other words, in times of oppression, people have the right, as a last resort, to use force against people with political and military power at all levels.
As applied to the participants of the uprisings in Kazakhstan in the 20s-30s of the 20th century, we can unambiguously speak about the legality, in terms of the right to rebellion, of the rebels' actions involving the use of force (up to and including murder) against law enforcement officers, military personnel, pro-government volunteer paramilitary detachments (ChON) and representatives of the authorities.
At the same time, actions directed against the civilian population, including relatives and family members of representatives of the authorities, as was the case in some insurrections, should be considered illegal.
As we see, international law and a number of national legal systems recognize the right of the people to rebellion, and the anti-Soviet riots in Kazakhstan in the 20-