Dear moderator, dear participants!

My name is Alexander Verkhovsky. I am sorry, but by Russian law I obliged to say SOVA Center for Information and Analysis is enlisted as foreign agent.

My country – Russia – is currently involved in a military conflict. During any such conflict, hatred toward the other side is, unfortunately, inevitable. Although the task of governments in such situations is – to contain the spread of hatred.

But what we see is hate speech proliferating with impunity not only against Ukrainians or the peoples of NATO member states, but also against other groups. One well-known example is, sadly, LGBT+ persons. But there is also an anti-migrant campaign in the official media, in the statements of official and pro-government politicians and public figures, and in the Internet. High-ranking officials make inappropriate jokes about Jews, and on the street, attacks on women wearing Muslim headscarves have suddenly become more frequent.

In previous years, my colleagues and I have praised the Russian government for its success in combating hate crimes. And today this fight is also actively underway. But the rising level of intolerance cannot but affect the level of hate crimes. This year, according to the SOVA Center, which I represent, the number of victims will clearly exceed the level of 2019-2021, not to mention the comparatively calm (in that regard) year of 2022. Natives of Central Asia, LGBT+, and members of various peaceful youth groups top the list of victims. Nationalist vigilanti groups are becoming increasingly active and organized.

Of course, the example of today's Russia is not typical. Still, it can teach us something. For example, the need to control the statements of government officials, whose freedom of speech is limited by their status.

Another aspect that must be noted is the abuse of legal norms created to counter hate speech, or the unjustified expansion of these norms. In Russia, this applies to the articles of the Criminal Code on incitement to hatred and on the rehabilitation of Nazism, and also to articles on hate crimes against property. Other countries might have other examples. It is unacceptable, for example, to consider critical, albeit harsh, statements against officials and the authorities in general as incitement to hatred. These abuses have political reasons, but they suggest that laws and the rules concerning their implementation should be designed to avoid excessive sanctions or undue restrictions on freedom of expression.

Our recommendations

For ODIHR OSCE:

1. To consolidate and summarize the experience of comprehensive counteraction to groups, not only political in the narrow sense of the word, engaging in and promoting violence, from the investigation of individual crimes to the identification and dismantling of the infrastructure of these groups (identifying their sources of financing, leaders and coordinators of acts of violence, etc.). If necessary, we suggest holding an international expert seminar on this topic.

2. To organize a series of seminars for law enforcement officers from different countries in order to share successful experiences in collecting information on and statistical recording of hate crimes.

3. Based on the existing experience of comparative analysis of the legislation of the participating countries in countering hate crimes, to conduct a comparative analysis of a wider range of national legislation in the field of combating intolerance, particularly legislation that deals with incitement to hatred, discrimination, and the activities of the groups concerned.

4. To supplement the comparative analysis of legislation with the comparative analysis of law enforcement in the OSCE member states, primarily related to countering hate crimes and incitement to hatred.

For OSCE Member States:

1. To adjust crime recording systems so that suspected hate motive could be recorded at any stage, including at the earliest stage of the crime-recording process. The investigation of hate crimes is more effective when conducted by specialized units, but it should also be conducted by ordinary police units.

2. To publish the statistics on hate crimes, including their types, regions, and the number of victims. The official statistics should be based on both court decisions (both proven and unproven cases) and the number of opened criminal investigations.

3. To make more active use of the information collected by NGOs engaged in systematic monitoring of the activities of racist groups and to consult with NGOs regarding law enforcement issues.

4. To adjust the legislation on hate crimes and related activities, including public incitement, organizational activities, financing, etc. The legislation should direct the focus of law enforcement agencies on the prosecution, first and foremost, of the most dangerous crimes against the person. The rules and instructions implemented within law enforcement agencies should also focus on this priority.

5. To evaluate national hate speech laws and their enforcement and implementation basing on the six-part threshold test proposed by the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2013, including the so-called six-part test for determining public statements’ real threat.

6. To develop and adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination laws containing effective and valid rules and procedures to prove discrimination.

7. Public officials should have no right to express publicly their intolerance or disrespect to any ethnic, religious or similar groups. Civil service legislation should include effective sanctions against such actions. These penalties also need to be made public. This policy should also be implemented in situations of crises of any kind and military conflicts.