Hate Crime in Russia (November 2006 - April 2007): Brief Analysis, Statistics, Recommendations

*On May 3, 2007, in Berlin, EU and Russia hold the fifth round of their Human Rights Consultations (see press-releases of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and of the European Union).

The SOVA Center took part in the traditional preliminary meeting of the representatives of Russian and international NGOs and the European officials who participate in the consultations (Russian diplomats, unfortunately, decline participation in these meetings). The Russian part was represented by the Memorial, Moscow Helsinki Group, Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, Demos, "Civic Assistance" Committee, Glasnost Defense Foundation and the SOVA Center. From the EU part there were officials of the EU institutions and of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Germany and Portugal (the actual and the following EU chairman countries), some of the European Ombudsmen. Russian NGO representatives reported on the problems which were chosen as priority for this round of the consultations and gave their view of the recent events in Tallinn.

The SOVA Center presented the following short report and recommendations to the authorities on hate crimes in Russia, and also report and recommendations on the problem of misuse of the anti-extremism legislation.*

Over the reviewed period we have observed an increase of racist and neo-Nazi violence which, unfortunately, the law enforcement agencies have not been able to stem, especially in the main centers of violence, such as Moscow and St. Petersburg. In the winter of 2006-07, the number of victims was 30% higher than during the previous winter. In total, in 2006 we know of 541 victims of such attacks, of which 55 were killed (461 victims, 47 deaths in 2005). Between 1 January and 20 April we know of 172 victims of such attacks, of which 23 were killed. It is obvious that the rate of hate crime is accelerating.

It would be unfair to say that the Russian law enforcement agencies do not make an effort to improve their efforts to fight such crimes. They certainly perform better now than a few years ago. In 2005, there were 17 convictions for such crimes, where the hate motive was recognized, and 56 offenders were convicted, whereas in 2006 there were 33 convictions, and 109 offenders were convicted. The number of convictions has thus almost doubled over one year, continuing the past trend. By 20 April of this year eight guilty verdicts have been handed out already to 19 racist offenders.

The Russian law enforcement agencies have even improved their handling of "hate propaganda" cases which used to be hopeless before. In 2006, 17 verdicts were passed against 20 offenders (in 2005 - 11 verdicts against 14 offenders), while by 20 April this year there have been 5 verdicts.

But we can see that these measures are still inadequate and fail to stem the growth of hate crime. Indeed, a one in twenty risk of being punished is a poor deterrent for an aggressive young man inspired by racist ideology. Obviously, counteracting hate crime is not a priority for the Russian law enforcement system today. There is no mandatory requirement to report suspected hate motives, as the law allows authorities to avoid investigating offenses as hate crimes in most cases.

Poor investigation remains a major problem. It was graphically demonstrated by a series of cases in St. Petersburg related to the so-called Borovikov gang. Even though it is well-known that members of this gang (which had different names and membership at different times, while preserving the same core) committed many attacks, including high-profile racist murders, these crimes were poorly investigated, resulting in disproportionately mild penalties meted out to the gang members (R.Melnik, members of "Mad Crowd" and "Schultz-88").

We cannot say, nevertheless, that the Russian society and government are ignoring the problem of hate crime altogether. Public figures and government officials, including the President himself, have denounced ethnic and religious xenophobia on many occasions. But at the same time, since the second half of 2006 - especially after the Kondopoga riots - one can observe the active and ubiquitous expansion of ethno-nationalism both in public life (even some politicians formerly regarded as "liberal" use nationalist rhetoric) and in official domestic policies such as the anti-Georgian discriminatory campaign and populist ban on foreign traders (commonly understood as "ethnic aliens") selling goods in the Russian retail markets.

In addition to these and similar manipulations of xenophobic sentiments and continued attempts to allow "manageable nationalism" - which, in and of itself, further legitimizes nationalist ideas - authorities, on the one hand, have failed to insist that law enforcement agencies effectively counteract all manifestations of radical nationalism. On the other hand, authorities have nothing to offer as an alternative to massive ethnic xenophobia in the public discourse.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Counteraction to massive ethnic and religious xenophobia, hate crime and hate speech, must take place at three levels: education, government practices, and direct measures to counteract hate crime and hate speech.

Education.

It should be based on changing the content of educational curriculums with the central purpose of eliminating ethnocentric theories and interpretations from the teaching of humanitarian subjects.

Non-discrimination.

Discrimination must be recognized as a serious problem affecting the Russian society. There is a need for consistent policies aimed at eliminating discriminatory practices from all government establishments, particularly within the law enforcement agencies.

It is imperative to initiate, without delay, the drafting of anti-discrimination legislation, drawing on experts from human rights groups. Russia needs to ratify international instruments against discrimination, including the 12th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which establishes the liability of public officials for discrimination.

Counteraction to hate crime and hate speech.

Counteraction to hate crime must be recognized as one of the law enforcement's priorities.

There is a need to review the current legislation, in particular the Federal Law on Combating Extremist Activity. The definition of extremist activity in art. 1 of the Federal Law must be reformulated as a combination of respective articles of the Criminal Code. It is also important to introduce the hate motive as an aggravating circumstance in a number of Criminal Code articles which punish violent crimes, where it is currently absent.

There must be a requirement to report suspected hate motives to facilitate monitoring and supervision of such investigations.

There is a need for developing additional guidelines for the Ministry of Interior agencies, prosecutors and courts concerning the application of effective laws with regard to hate crimes.

There is a need for effective monitoring of xenophobic manifestations, using a methodology agreed by all stakeholders - the authorities concerned, including prosecutors, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Culture and mass communications, and NGOs. The monitoring should include the collection of good quality statistics on the application of laws in this sphere (see details in our previous recommendations).