Number 108

September 2019

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018AND

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIESFEATURED ARTICLESIntroduction to Hate Crimes for Law Enforcement: Investigation and Prosecution
Christina M. Finch（OSCE）
Thailand’s Effort to End Violence Against Women: One Form of Crime Motivated by
Gender Discrimination
Santanee Ditsayabut（Thailand）
Repairing the Harms of Hate Crime: Towards a Restorative Justice Approach?
Mark Austin Walters（United Kingdom）
International Efforts to Follow-Up on the Doha Declaration of the Thirteenth
United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Crimes Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination: Overview of Trends andResponses at the National and International Levels
Dimosthenis Chrysikos（UNODC）

The United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders

ANNUAL
ANNUAL REPORTREPORT FOR
FOR 2017
2018
AND
AND

RESOURCERESOURCE MATERIAL
MATERIAL
SERIES NO.
NO. 105
108
SERIES
CRIMINALJUSTICERESPONSE
ENHANCING
THE RULE
OF LAWTOINCRIMES
THE FIELD OF
CRIME PREVENTION
AND CRIMINAL
MOTIVATEDBY INTOLERANCE
AND JUSTICE:
POLICIES AND P RACTICES B ASED ON THE U NITED N ATIONSDISCRIMINATIONCONVENTIONS AND STANDARDS AND NORMS

UNAFEIUNAFEI
Akishima,
Tokyo, Japan
Akishima, Tokyo,
Japan

September
2018
September 2019

Takeshi Seto
Director
United Nations
Asia and Far East Institutefor the Prevention of Crime andthe Treatment of Offenders(UNAFEI)
2-1-18 Mokuseinomori, Akishima-shi, Tokyo, Japan
unafei@i.moj.go.jp

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY NOTE･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

v

PART ONEANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
Main Activities of UNAFEI･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 3
UNAFEI Work Programme for 2019･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 15
Appendix････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 19

PART TWOWORK PRODUCT OF THE 171st
INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR“CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CRIMES MOTIVATED BY INTOLERANCEAND DISCRIMINATION”

Visiting Experts’ Papers• Introduction to Hate Crimes for Law Enforcement: Investigation and Prosecution
by Ms. Cristina M. Finch (OSCE)･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 37•	Thailand’s Effort to End Violence Against Women: One Form of Crime Motivated by Gender
Discriminationby Ms. Santanee Ditsayabut (Thailand)････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 49• Repairing the Harms of Hate Crime: Towards a Restorative Justice Approach?
by Mr. Mark Austin Walters (United Kingdom)･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････ 56•	International Efforts to Follow-Up on the Doha Declaration of the Thirteenth United Nations
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
by Mr. Dimosthenis Chrysikos (UNODC)･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 73•	Crimes Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination: Overview of Trends and Responses at
the National and International Levels
by Mr. Dimosthenis Chrysikos (UNODC)･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 83
Participants’ Papers•	Criminal Justice Response to Crime Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination—Brazilian
Legislation and Experienceby Mr. André Lopes Lasmar (Brazil)･ ･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 104•	Criminal Justice Response to Crime Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination
by Mr. Raufa Haidar (Maldives)････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 109• Violence Against Women in Maldivesby Mr. Ahmed Shuhad (Maldives)･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 114

iii• Criminal Justice Response to Crimes Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination
by Mr. Shahid Javed (Pakistan)･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 119• Sri Lankan Response to Combating Crimes Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination
by Mr. Ranga Srinath Abeywickrema Dissanayake (Sri Lanka) ･ ････････････････････････････････ 130• Criminal Justice Response to Crimes Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination
by Mr. Waruna Jayasundara (Sri Lanka) ･ ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 137
Group Workshop Sessions•	Group One: The Challenges and Best Practices to Encounter Crimes Motivated by Intolerance
and Discriminationby (UNAFEI).････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 141•	Group Two: Crimes Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination: Problems and Their
Resolutionby (UNAFEI)･ ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 142•	Group Three: Best Practices for Supporting Victims of Crime Motivated by Intolerance andDiscriminationby (UNAFEI)･ ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 143
APPENDIX･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 145
Group Photo• 171st International Senior Seminar･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 147
RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES INDEX･････････････････････････････････････････････････ 148

iv

INTRODUCTORY NOTE
It is with pride that the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) offers to the international community the Resource Material Series No.
108. This volume contains the Annual Report for 2018 and the work produced in the 171st International
Senior Seminar, conducted from 9 January to 7 February 2019. The main theme of the 171st Seminar was
the Criminal Justice Response to Crimes Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination.
In order to suppress intolerance crimes effectively, it is necessary to establish proper legal bases topunish intolerance crimes, such as by adopting penalty enhancement or other substantive offences. During
investigation, criminal justice authorities must seek and identify bias indicators, that is, adequate evidence toprove the offender’s intolerant or discriminatory motives. Moreover, it is essential to take steps to build
public confidence in law enforcement in order to facilitate cooperation with investigations. This can be doneby establishing positive professional relationships with victims and victim communities and by implementing
witness protection and other measures that provide broader assistance (e.g. access to victim support services).
When crimes are motivated by discrimination or intolerance, imposing a penalty alone may not be sufficient
to prevent the offender from committing further crimes. Thus, it is important to administer properinterventions, including those aimed at correcting the offender’s biased or discriminatory thoughts, andutilization of the restorative justice approach.  
UNAFEI, as one of the institutes of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme
Network, held this Seminar to explore various issues that relate to crimes involving intolerance anddiscrimination. This issue of the Resource Material Series, in regard to the 171st International Senior Seminar,
contains papers contributed by visiting experts and selected individual-presentation papers from among theparticipants. I regret that not all the papers submitted by the participants of the Seminar could be published.
I would like to pay tribute to the contributions of the Government of Japan, particularly the Ministry ofJustice, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation, for providing
indispensable and unwavering support to UNAFEI’s international training programmes.
Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all who so unselfishly assisted in the publicationof this series.
September 2019

Takeshi SETO
Director of UNAFEIv

PART ONEANNUAL REPORTFOR 2018•••

Main Activities of UNAFEI
UNAFEI Work Programme for 2019
Appendix

UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2018 – 31 December 2018)

I. ROLE AND MANDATE
The Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI)
was established in Tokyo, Japan in 1962 pursuant to an agreement between the United Nations and theGovernment of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social development in the Asia and the Pacific region
by promoting regional cooperation in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, through training andresearch.
UNAFEI has paid utmost attention to the priority themes identified by the Commission on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice. Moreover, UNAFEI has been taking up urgent, contemporary problems in
the administration of criminal justice in the region, especially problems generated by rapid socio-economicchange (e.g., transnational organized crime, corruption, economic and computer crime and the reintegrationof prisoners into society) as the main themes and topics for its training courses, seminars and research
projects.

II. TRAINING
Training is the principal area and priority of the Institute's work programmes. In the international
training courses and seminars, participants from different areas of the criminal justice field discuss and studypressing problems of criminal justice administration from various perspectives. They deepen theirunderstanding, with the help of lectures and advice from the UNAFEI faculty, visiting experts and ad hoc
lecturers. This so-called "problem-solving through an integrated approach" is one of the chief characteristics
of UNAFEI programmes.
Each year, UNAFEI conducts two international training courses (six weeks) and one international seminar(five weeks). Approximately one hundred government officials from various overseas countries receive
fellowships from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA is an independent administrative
institution for ODA programmes) each year to participate in all UNAFEI training programmes.
Training courses and seminars are attended by both overseas and Japanese participants. Overseas
participants come not only from the Asia-Pacific region but also from Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America,
the Middle and Near East, and Oceania. These participants are experienced practitioners and administrators
holding relatively senior positions in the criminal justice field.
By the end of 2018, UNAFEI had conducted a total of 170 international training courses and seminars.
Over 5,900 criminal justice personnel representing 139 different countries and administrative regions haveparticipated in these seminars. UNAFEI also conducts a number of other specialized courses, both country
and subject focused, in which hundreds of other participants from many countries have been involved. In
their respective countries, UNAFEI alumni have been playing leading roles and hold important posts in thefields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.
A. The 168th International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 168th International Senior Seminar was held from 11 January to 9 February 2018. The main theme
was “Enhancing the Rule of Law in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice: Policies and Practices
Based on the United Nations Conventions and Standards and Norms”. Twenty-one overseas participants(including one course counsellor) and seven Japanese participants attended the Seminar.
3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
2. Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants introduced the roles and functions of criminal justice agencies in theircountries in regard to the main theme. After receiving lectures from UNAFEI professors and visiting
experts, the participants were then divided into three group workshops as follows:
Group 1: Law-Related Education Contributing to Peaceful and Inclusive Societies
Group 2: Access to Justice for All in the Criminal Justice System
Group 3: Community-Based Dispute Resolution
Each Group selected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) in order tofacilitate the discussions. During group discussion, the group members studied the designated topics andexchanged views based on information obtained through personal experiences, the Individual Presentations,lectures and so forth. The Groups presented their reports during the Report-Back Session, where they wereendorsed as the Reports of the Seminar. The full texts of these Reports were published in UNAFEI Resource
Material Series No. 105.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Law-Related Education Contributing to Peaceful and Inclusive Societies
Group 1 discussed approaches and measures for using law-related education to contribute to peaceful andinclusive societies. Specifically, the group focused on strategies and implementation of law-related education(LRE) for teachers, students, community leaders, and the general public.
The rule of law protects human rights by ensuring that the laws are applied fairly and equally to allmembers and segments of society. Yet without a firm understanding of the purpose of the law and its
obligations, members of the general public will not be able to follow the law or vindicate their rights.
Therefore, promoting LRE is a key element for deepening public understanding about human rights, the ruleof law and the values behind them; this will also help to instil a culture of lawfulness in society, which exists
when the general public respects the law and believes in its justness and fairness.
In order to teach students about the rule of law, teachers must familiarize themselves with the basic
principles of the rule of law by receiving training from relevant ministries, criminal justice officials, etc., and,
when possible, Training for Trainers sessions should be held. The group recommended that curricula should
be developed using a multisectoral approach by a committee consisting of government officials, academics
and experts. To implement new educational programmes, developing countries may seek funding frominternational development agencies. To be accessible to students, LRE must be age appropriate and interesting,for which the group recommended cooperating with the private sector. It was also recommended thatgovernments make LRE compulsory for all students.
Community leaders, such as religious leaders, police officers, artists, politicians, volunteer probation
officers, village leaders etc., can play vital roles in disseminating information to the general public. For
example, in Sri Lanka, village leaders and selected citizens are trained in LRE by the police and thencoordinate matters with the police and other institutions on behalf of the village. By doing so, community
leaders, as well as the general public, feel that they are part and parcel of the legal system. Sustainable
development of a society can only occur in an environment in which the general public supports the rule oflaw through direct participation in the criminal justice system. In Japan, citizens participate directly throughthe saiban-in (lay judge) system and by serving as volunteer probation officers. The group also stressed theimportance of using the mass media, social media, and mascots or cartoon characters to draw the public’s
attention to LRE-related messaging. The ultimate goal of LRE is to achieve a culture of lawfulness, in which
all members of society respect, support and understand the rule of law and actively participate in maintainingit.
(ii) Access to Justice for All in the Criminal Justice System
Group 2 addressed the issue of access to justice by focusing on victims of crime. Modern societies seek
to avoid violence by resolving disputes through independent, impartial judiciaries, making access to justicefor all—but particularly for victims—important to maintaining peaceful societies in which all members place4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
trust in the criminal justice system. Public understanding of basic information about the criminal justicesystem will enable victims to make informed decisions, to understand the process of identifying wrongs
committed against them and to find suitable remedies.
The group’s discussions identified a number of challenges to access to justice for victims, including accessto police stations and facilities, legal expenses for the victims, inefficiency and lack of trust in the criminal
justice system, failure to provide victims with sufficient information about the prosecution of the defendantand his or her sentence, lack of cooperation between criminal justice agencies and other professions, lack ofknowledge about the criminal justice system, community attitudes, and failure to prioritize access-to-justiceissues.
In response to these challenges, a number of good practices were identified to improve access to justice.
These include: women only police stations to encourage reporting of crimes (Brazil); legal aid clinics and legal
support centres to provide information to crime victims (Cote d’Ivoire, Japan, Laos); forensic interviewing to
reduce mental burdens on child-victims (Japan and Thailand); information brochures on access to justice(Cote d’Ivoire and Japan); law-related education (Japan and Thailand); alternative dispute resolution to help
victims obtain justice (Thailand).
Considering the challenges and drawing from the good practices identified, the group offered the following
recommendations: (1) improving the location and facilities of police stations; (2) improving the process forreporting crime; (3) establishing women only police stations; (4) providing legal expenses for crime victims
and extending legal aid to include victim support or establishing Legal Support Centres for victims; (5)increasing and improving training for criminal justice agencies to improve interactions with victims; (6)establishing Independent Integrity Commissions to handle victim complaints on the conduct of criminal
justice officials; (7) establishing victim notification mechanisms and victim feedback forms; (8) developing a
network for communication between criminal justice agencies and relevant professionals; (9) promoting
criminal justice through campaigns, use of media and publication of materials to inform the public; (10)promoting legal education in schools and the public; and (11) developing marketing strategies to promote
access to justice.
The group concluded by noting that its recommendations are intended to increase victims’ access to, andtrust in, the criminal justice system. To implement these recommendations, it is necessary to secure fundingthat is based on effective data analysis and proper record management.
(iii) Community-Based Dispute Resolution
Group 3, addressing the issue of public participation in criminal justice, focused on the measure ofcommunity-based dispute resolution (CBDR) as a way of increasing public participation and access to justice.
The aim of CBDR is to reach resolution between the parties to the dispute. While the formal criminal justicesystem is the main approach for preventing crime in accordance with the rule of law, the formal system isexpensive. Taking account of cultural diversity and geographical remoteness, CBDR is an alternative
approach that can prevent crime by providing fair, prompt and inexpensive means to maintain peace andharmony in the community.
The group introduced practices from many of the participating countries that represent the CBDR
approach, such as the Nangdrik community dispute resolution programme in Bhutan, civil reconciliation in
Japan, village court mediation in Papua New Guinea, the Barangay Justice System in the Philippines, and civil
and criminal mediation in Thailand, in which the court’s mediators are selected from among the generalpublic. It was noted that most countries use mediation in civil or minor cases as a customary communitybased practice, but few countries apply CBDR to criminal cases.
While the group agreed that CBDR is an important measure for resolving disputes, there are numerous
challenges to its use and implementation, including, among others, cultural and geographical diversity andlack of awareness of legal rights and options. To achieve fairness in CBDR, the group agreed that there must
be balance between the protection of defendants’ rights and victims’ rights. It is also important to havecriteria for selecting mediators, codes of conduct, and training for mediators, as well as greater publicawareness of the mediation process. Finally, effective measures must be identified to ensure performance ofobligations agreed to through the CBDR process. Several of the measures identified include the practice of5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018referring the matter to the police (Bhutan and Thailand), involving relatives in the mediation to encourage
performance of obligations (Japan), and seeking the assistance of village court officials or clan/tribal leaders(Papua New Guinea).
The group offered a number of recommendations to enhance the quality of CBDR in countries that adopt
the approach. These measures include: legislation on CBDR; public awareness and education campaigns;
collaboration with bar associations; making use of the Japanese volunteer probation officer system; creationof policy guidelines for CBDR; providing incentives to mediators; providing appropriate training and selectionof mediators; and referring cases to the formal legal system if obligations agreed to during CBDR are not
performed. The group concluded that the CBDR approach not only enhances public participation in criminal
justice but enhances access to justice and LRE.
B. The 169th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 169th International Training Course was held from 9 May to 14 June 2018. The main theme was“Criminal Justice Practices against Illicit Drug Trafficking”. Twenty-four overseas participants and seven
Japanese participants attended the Course.
2. Methodology
The objectives of the Course were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations, lectures byvisiting experts and Group Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation,
problems and future prospects of his or her country with respect to the main theme of the Course. The
Group Workshops further examined the subtopics of the main theme. To facilitate discussion, the participants
were divided into three groups to discuss the following topics under the guidance of faculty advisers:
Group 1: Effective Investigative and Prosecutorial Measures to Detect, Prosecute and Punish Leaders of
Crime Organizations and High Value Targets
Group 2: Confiscation of Drugs and Proceeds Derived from Drug Offences: A Way Forward for Effective
Enforcement
Group 3: Multi-Agency and International Cooperation
The three groups each selected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) toorganize the discussions. The group members studied the designated subtopics and exchanged their views
based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and soforth. The Groups presented their reports during the Report-Back Session, where they were endorsed as
the reports of the Course. The full texts of the reports were published in full in Resource Material SeriesNo. 106.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Effective Investigative and Prosecutorial Measures to Detect, Prosecute and Punish Leaders of Crime
Organizations and High Value Targets
Drug trafficking is a global crime in which organized crime groups operate in secrecy. Thus, special
measures are necessary to combat drug trafficking. The group reported on the current situation of special
measures in the participating countries, explained common problems, and recommended solutions. For all
measures, the group stressed the importance of establishing legal frameworks (specific legislation) for theuse of such measures.
Because drug trafficking is committed in secret, informants are critical for detection and investigation.
However, challenges faced include the reliability of information provided, protection of informants, andcorruption among law enforcement officials. Thus, the group stressed the need to scrutinize and corroborate
information obtained before making decisions. Additionally, witness protection frameworks should beestablished, and compensation should be offered subject to strict record keeping.
While electronic surveillance and communication interception are important techniques to detect drugtrafficking, safeguards (i.e., warrants and time limitations) are necessary to protect the privacy rights of6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
citizens. In addition to laws on electronic surveillance, the group recommended the adoption of standard
operating procedures for the use of these technologies, increasing budgets to acquire state-of-the-art
technologies, and specialized training.
Undercover operations are high-risk investigative operations to infiltrate criminal organizations anddetect their criminal activities. Common problems include lack of legal frameworks, technology and training.
Solutions proposed include enhanced commitments to staffing, technology, training, and the protection of
agents and their families,
Controlled delivery operations permit illicit or suspect consignments to pass into or through an enforcing
jurisdiction in order to identify and apprehend those involved in the criminal activity. The group recommended
enhancing professionalism by conducting such operations by special law enforcement units, combining
controlled delivery with other investigative techniques, and establishing procedures to ensure timely
cooperation with foreign and domestic law enforcement agencies.
Finally, without testimony at trial, drug-trafficking prosecutions will fail. The group recommended witness
protection measures and the granting of immunity from prosecution to ensure that witnesses can safely
testify at trial.
(ii) Confiscation of Drugs and Proceeds Derived from Drug Offences: A Way Forward for Effective
Enforcement
To promote public safety and prevent the further commission of crime, confiscation of drugs and criminal
assets is a fundamental law-enforcement priority. Global conventions such as the Palermo Convention(UNTOC) and the Vienna Convention require States Parties to adopt measures to detect money launderingand confiscate illicit drugs, criminal proceeds and other instrumentalities of crime.
While the traditional approach to drug confiscation (informants and random checking) is important, thegroup noted that special investigative techniques (controlled delivery, undercover operations, electronic
surveillance) are more effective. These special techniques require a greater emphasis on training. Likewise,
investigators need training to stay up to date on drug-trafficking trends and modus operandi. For example,
proving intent in trafficking cases is a constant challenge that is compounded by the dark web andcryptocurrencies. The drug confiscation process is: search warrant, seizure, investigation, forensic testingand storage in a secure facility. To prevent the loss/theft of seized drugs, early disposal of drugs before theconclusion of the case was addressed by some members. The challenges of lack of international standards
on the disposal of drugs and lack of public trust in some countries were identified.
Criminal assets can be identified by search procedures (with or without warrants), Financial Intelligence
Units (FIUs), investigations and interrogations, and asset tracing. Challenges include the often-limited scopeof investigation of FIUs, registration of assets in the names of third parties, cross-border transactions andthe slow pace of international cooperation. To overcome these challenges, the group recommended
strengthening the investigative authority of FIUs, establishing clear guidelines for international cooperation,
adoption and implementation of international frameworks for asset tracing, and capacity-building for law
enforcement officers. Once assets are identified, authorities must freeze, confiscate, and ultimately dispose ofthem. However, certain assets often decline in value and are stored by the state at high cost. Measures toaddress these challenges include releasing assets on bond and authorizing special agencies to manage thestorage of seized property. Finally, the group also recommended that countries consider the adoption of civil
or non-conviction-based forfeiture per the FATF Recommendations. The group concluded by offering
recommendations to improve information sharing, border control practices, domestic coordination between
agencies, statistical information and analysis, and capacity-building(iii) Multi-Agency and International Cooperation
All countries, whether origin, transit or destination countries, are impacted by the cross-border nature of
drug trafficking. Therefore, drug trafficking is a matter of global concern, and international cooperation isnecessary to combat it. Group 3, under the theme of multi-agency and international cooperation, focused on
the topics of (a) border control, (b) information exchange, (c) mutual legal assistance, and (d) financial
institutions.

7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
Regarding border control, many participants reported severe difficulties in interdicting the trafficking ofdrugs across their inland borders, coastlines and points of entry. To respond to this challenge, the group
recommended strengthening border security and enhancement of visa application screening. Along similarlines, the group stressed the importance of agency-to-agency information exchanges between countries byentering into treaties or other agreements with neighbouring countries, as well as utilizing channels between
liaison magistrates, police attaches, FIU liaison officers and focal points of international cooperation networks,
such as INTERPOL.
Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is also an important measure to combat drug trafficking, but there are
numerous challenges to successful assistance, such as lack of domestic laws on MLA, lack of expertise,differences in legal systems and terminology, discrepancies in domestic laws, difficulty in implementing
special investigation techniques through MLA, and lack of timely response. Among numerous recommendations,the group suggested: (a) establishing international cooperation units within relevant agencies; (b) promotionof an active international cooperation culture among practitioners; (c) fostering communication throughinformal cooperation; (d) facilitation of international cooperation based on a harmonized list of common illicit
substances and precursors; and so on.
Regarding financial institutions, the group reviewed the practices implemented in the participating
countries to combat money laundering connected with drug trafficking. These practices include strengthening
anti-money-laundering laws, reliance on international cooperation, and sharing financial intelligence throughnetworks such as the Egmont Group. Still, challenges remain such as overcoming refusals to provide
assistance and meeting the dual criminality requirement with respect to countries deemed as tax havens.
The group recommended enhancing capacity-building efforts and using open source and FIU tools to trace
foreign accounts and assets.
C. The 170th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 170th International Training Course was held from 22 August to 21 September 2018. The main
theme was “Treatment of Illicit Drug Users”. Eighteen overseas participants (including four observers) andseven Japanese participants attended.
2. Methodology
The participants of the 170th Course endeavoured to explore the topic primarily through a comparative
analysis of the current situation and the problems encountered. The participants’ in-depth discussions enabled
them to put forth effective and practical solutions.
The objectives were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations, lectures by visiting experts
and the Group Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation, problems
and future prospects of his or her country with respect to the main theme of the Course. To facilitate
discussions, the participants were divided into two groups.
Group 1: Effective Treatment Modalities and Interventions for Incarcerated Drug Users
Group 2: Diversion Options and Treatment Methods in the Community Setting
Each Group selected a chairperson, co-chairperson, rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) to organize thediscussions. The group members studied the situation in each of their countries and exchanged their views
based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and soforth. Both groups examined the course theme. The Groups presented their reports in the Report-Back
Sessions, where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The reports were published in full in
UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 107.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Effective Treatment Modalities and Interventions for Incarcerated Drug Users
Group 1 addressed the issue of the treatment of drug users in prisons, including coordination between
prisons and community organizations to prepare for reintegration. Four crucial challenges were identified asnecessary to improve drug treatment in the custodial setting: (a) lack of trained personnel, (b) specialized8

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
assessment, (c) lack of community support and partnership, and (d) diversity of drug use programmes.
Regarding training of correctional staff, each country should conduct a training needs analysis on a yearlyor biennial basis to identify training needs and skills gaps. Specific training measures may include academic
and professional training programmes, such as obtaining certificates in social work. In-service training should
be provided by internal and external experts to enhance practical skills in the fields of law, medicine, etc.,
and learning from the experiences of community-based organizations should be encouraged.
Specialized assessment protocols and tools are necessary to determine which inmates are drug users,
have higher risk of relapse or reoffending, or are suffering from infectious diseases or mental health problems.
The Screening Brief Intervention Referral and Treatment (SBIRT) protocol provides a structured methodthat enables trained and untrained staff alike to conduct initial screening using tools such as ASSIST, DAST
20 and C-SRRS. These tools can be quickly and easily implemented to conduct initial assessments.
As drug users’ multifactorial risks and needs make it impossible to identify an ideal treatment programme,
a diversified portfolio of programmes, including psychological (e.g. CBT), social (e.g. family involvement) andpharmacological (e.g. detox) approaches, should be developed. To the greatest extent possible, treatment
programmes should be administered on a voluntary basis.
Finally, community organizations should be involved in offender treatment programmes as early as
possible to coordinate ongoing treatment after release. In so doing, practitioners in correctional facilities
should utilize the through-care approach, aftercare and the promotion of offender reintegration into society
through public awareness programmes. The group concluded by recommending that policymakers aligncriminal justice laws with current public health policies, including harm-reduction strategies.
(ii) Diversion Options and Treatment Methods in the Community Setting
Noting that evidence-based studies support the effectiveness of diversion and other alternatives toimprisonment at helping offenders successfully reintegrate into society, Group 2 discussed ways to create
and implement such measures. While the traditional approach to drug crime involves criminalization, harshpunishment and stigmatization of the offender, this approach has been ineffective at deterring drug use.
Furthermore, incarceration has numerous disadvantages including a higher incarceration rate, higher costsof correctional facilities, weakening of the economic status of the inmate’s family, decreasing the inmate’s
employability upon release, and so on. Accordingly, criminal justice systems stand to benefit greatly fromreliable diversion methods that focus on treatment and reintegration.
Effective diversion can be applied at all stages of the criminal justice process, including the pre-trial, trial,and post-trial stages. Even incarcerated offenders may receive community-based treatment through work
release programmes or by engaging in community-based programmes on day release, enabling offenders tocontinue treatment in the community upon release. Diversion is a bridge to the community through which
offenders can access community support, such as volunteer probation officers, rehabilitation centres, self-helpgroups, hospitals, clinics, etc. Eligibility for diversion programmes—and matching of offenders with appropriate
programmes—should be based on assessments of each offender’s unique risks and needs. In particular,
judges have an important role in sentencing or diverting offenders.
Despite general acceptance of the importance of diversion and alternatives to imprisonment by criminal
justice practitioners, a number of issues and challenges prevent the implementation of effective measuresand practices, including (a) the absence of legislation on diversion, (b) stigmatization of offenders, (c) lack ofpublic awareness/information, (d) lack of professionals in the field, (e) inadequate collaboration among criminal
justice agencies, and (f) lack of adequate funding of drug treatment programmes. To address these challenges,
the group recommended legal reforms adopting diversionary measures, training and skills development for
officers, community outreach and public awareness programmes, countering stigmatization, and prioritizing
community-based rehabilitation for drug offenders.

9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018

III. SPECIAL TRAINING COURSES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A. Third Country Training Programme for Development of Effective Community-Based Treatment of
Offenders in the CLMV Countries
From 9 to 19 January 2018, UNAFEI co-hosted the Third Country Training Programme for Developmentof Effective Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMV Countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar,
and Viet Nam).
B. The Fifth UNAFEI Criminal Justice Training Programme for French-Speaking African Countries
From 12-23 February 2018, UNAFEI co-hosted the Fifth Criminal Justice Training Programme forFrench-Speaking African Countries in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. 33 practitioners from 8 French-speaking Africancountries discussed capacity-building for investigation, prosecution and adjudication, and measures forcombating terrorism and organized crime.
C. The Training Course for Myanmar Prison Officials
From 14-28 February 2018, ten prison officials from Myanmar studied the institutional correction system
of Japan.
D. The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal
From 5-16 March 2018, nine Nepalese participants studied and compared Japanese and Nepalese trial
procedure, police investigation and criminal identification practices.
E. The RTI-SPP Exchange Programme for Viet Nam
From 11-17 March 2018, two Vietnamese participants discussed the amended criminal procedure code.
F. Training Course on Legal Technical Assistance for Viet Nam
From 12-23 March 2018, ten Vietnamese participants discussed the implementation of the amended
criminal procedure code.
G. Follow-up Seminar for the Second Phase of the Third Country Training Programme for Developmentof Effective Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMV Countries
From 26-28 June 2018, UNAFEI hosted the Follow-up Seminar for the Third Country Training Programme
for Development of Effective Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMV Countries (Cambodia,
Laos, Myanmar, and Viet Nam).
H. The 21st UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
UNAFEI’s annual general anti-corruption programme, the UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme, took
place from October to November 2018. The main theme of the Programme is “Combating Corruption
through Effective Criminal Justice Practices, International Cooperation and Engagement of Civil Society”.
Twenty-five overseas participants and several Japanese participants attended.
I. The Twelfth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
From 27 to 29 November 2018, UNAFEI held the Twelfth Regional Seminar on Good Governance in Da
Nang, Viet Nam. Among other participants, 19 anti-corruption practitioners from the 10 ASEAN countries
attended as official delegates.

IV. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION SERVICES
The Institute continues to collect data and other resource materials on crime trends, crime prevention
strategies and the treatment of offenders from Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Europe and the Americas, and makes
use of this information in its training courses and seminars. The Information and Library Service of theInstitute has been providing, upon request, materials and information to United Nations agencies, governmentalorganizations, research institutes and researchers, both domestic and foreign.

V. PUBLICATIONS
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute. Since 1971, the Institute10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
has issued the Resource Material Series, which contains contributions by the faculty members, visiting
experts and participants of UNAFEI courses and seminars. In 2018, the 104th, 105th and 106th editions of
the Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issues 155 to 157 (from the 168th Senior Seminarto the 170th International Training Course, respectively) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were published, which
included a brief report on each course and seminar and other timely information. These publications are alsoavailable on UNAFEI’s website at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.

VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 26 January 2018, the Public Lecture Programme was conducted in the Grand Conference Hall of the
Ministry of Justice. In attendance were many distinguished guests, UNAFEI alumni and the participants of
the 168th International Senior Seminar. This Programme was jointly sponsored by the Asia Crime Prevention
Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society (JCPS) and UNAFEI.
Public Lecture Programmes increase the public’s awareness of criminal justice issues, through comparativeinternational study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. In 2018, Dr. Roy Godson, Professor
Emeritus, Georgetown University, and Ms. Lulua Asaad, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer at
the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), were invited as speakers. They presented on“Culture of Lawfulness and Measures to Promote It” and “UN Congresses and Education for Justice”,
respectively.
B. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about to commence,research activities in their respective criminal justice fields. It is, therefore, one of the important tasks of
UNAFEI to support these contributions to improve the crime situation internationally.
C. Overseas Missions in 2018
Professors WATANABE and MINOURA visited Bangkok, Thailand from 8 to 20 January as Visiting
Experts for the Third-Country Training Programme for Development of Effective Community-based
Treatment of Offenders in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Viet Nam hosted by Rehabilitation Bureau,
Ministry of Justice, Thailand.
Professor YUKAWA visited Valletta, Malta from 29 January to 1 February to attend the Plenary Meetingof the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) Criminal Justice and Rule of Law (CJ-ROL) Working Group.
Deputy Director ISHIHARA, Professor YUKAWA and Professor YAMADA visited Abidjan, Côte
d’Ivoire from 9 to 25 February to conduct the Fifth UNAFEI Criminal Justice Training Programme forFrench-Speaking African Countries.
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates from 17 to 21 February to attend the
GCTF Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group Workshop on Monitoring, Measurement and
Evaluation.
Director SENTA and Professor AKASHI visited Manila, Philippines and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 1
to 10 March to obtain feedback on JICA/UNAFEI training programmes and to research offender rehabilitationin the institution and the community in Malaysia and the Philippines.
Professor YAMADA visited Da Nang and Hanoi, Viet Nam from 5 to 9 March to discuss the Twelfth
Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries with related organizations.
Professor AKASHI visited Jakarta, Indonesia from 11 to 15 March to research community-based
corrections in Indonesia.
Professors YOSHIMURA and WATANABE visited Yangon, Mandalay, and Naypyidaw, Myanmar from4 to 18 March to discuss the Comparative Study of Myanmar and Japan to improve prison management.

11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
Professor YOSHIMURA visited Colombo, Sri Lanka from 12-18 March to attend the 7th Asian Conferenceof Correctional Facilities Architects and Planners (ACCFA).
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic from 12 to 18 March to attend a UNODC
regional workshop on the prevention of violent extremism.
Professors WATANABE and MINOURA visited Bangkok, Thailand and Phnom Penh, Cambodia from 15
to 24 March to implement the monitoring and evaluation session of the Third Country Training Programme(TCTP) in Cambodia and to report the results and discuss the Follow-up Seminar on the Third Country
Training Programme for Development of Effective Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMVCountries with the Department of Probation in Thailand.
Director SENTA, Deputy Director ISHIHARA and Professors WATANABE and YAMAMOTO visited
Vienna, Austria from 12 to 20 May to attend the 29th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice.
Professor YAMAMOTO visited San Diego, California (USA) from 8 to 16 June to attend the College on
Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) 80th Annual Scientific Meeting.
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Manila, Muntinlupa, and Quezon, Philippines from 4 to 13 July to discuss
the UNODC Project “Improving Criminal Justice Response Inside and Outside Prison to Prevent and Counter
Terrorism in the Philippines”.
Deputy Director ISHIHARA visited Delhi, India from 23 to 28 July to attend the Global Central Authorities
Initiative: South Asia Regional Workshop hosted by the International Institute for Justice and the Rule ofLaw (IIJ).
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Dili, Timor-Leste from 23 to 27 July to discuss the seminars for fiscal
year 2018 with relevant organizations.
Professor YAMADA visited Garmisch, Germany from 30 July to 26 August to attend the Countering
Transnational Organized Crime (CTOC) Course hosted by the George C. Marshall European Center.
Professor FURUHASHI visited Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 1 to 9 September to attend the 38th Asianand Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators.
Professors WATANABE and KITAGAWA visited San Antonio, Texas (USA) from 15 to 21 September
to attend the 26th Annual Conference of the International Community Corrections Association (ICCA).
Director SETO visited Siracusa, Italy and Vienna, Austria from 22 to 30 September to attend a meeting
hosted by the Siracusa International Institute for Criminal Justice and Human Rights in and to meet with
officers of the UNODC in Vienna.
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Marrakesh, Morocco from 30 September to 6 October to attend theWorkshop on Countering Violent Extremism in Prisons, hosted by the GCTF Countering Violent Extremism(CVE) Working Group.
Professor FURUHASHI visited Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from 15 to 23 October to attend the37th Annual Research and Treatment Conference hosted by the Association for the Treatment of Sexual
Abusers.
Professors YAMAMOTO and OHINATA visited Montreal, Canada from 20 to 28 October to attend the20th AGM and Conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association (ICPA) on the theme of“Beyond Prisons: The Way Forward”.
Professors WATANABE and FURUHASHI visited Yangon and Naypyidaw, Myanmar from 4 to 9
November to hold meetings with related organizations on the preparation of training materials.
12

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
Professor YAMAMOTO visited Dili, Timor-Leste from 7 to 17 November to hold a seminar for prison
officials and to discuss the UNODC Project “Improving Criminal Justice Response Inside and Outside Prison
to Prevent and Counter Terrorism in the Philippines”.
Professor KITAGAWA visited Vientiane, Lao PDR from 8 to 14 November to research the current
condition of community-based treatment of offenders and to hold meetings with relevant organizations.
Director SETO and Professor YAMADA visited Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam from 18 to 24
November to attend the Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam.
Director SETO, Deputy Director ISHIHARA, and Professors YAMADA and FUTAGOISHI visited Da
Nang, Viet Nam from 25 November to 1 December to conduct the Twelfth Regional Seminar on Good
Governance for Southeast Asian Countries.
Professors OTANI, HIRANO and WATANABE visited Kathmandu, Nepal from 16 to 23 December todiscuss plans for the Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal.
Professor KITAGAWA visited Bangkok, Thailand from 10 to 22 December to attend the Third Phase of
the Third Country Training Programme for the Development of Effective Community-Based Treatment of
Offenders in the CLMV Countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Viet Nam).
D. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI cooperates and collaborates with the ACPF to improve crime prevention and criminal justiceadministration in the region. Since UNAFEI and the ACPF have many similar goals, and a large part of the
ACPF’s membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, the relationship between the two is very strong.

VII. HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Staff
In 1970, the Government of Japan assumed full financial and administrative responsibility for running theInstitute. The Director, Deputy Director and approximately nine professors are selected from among publicprosecutors, the judiciary, corrections, probation and the police. UNAFEI also has approximately 15
administrative staff members, who are appointed from among officials of the Government of Japan, and alinguistic adviser. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice invites visiting experts from abroad to each training
course and seminar. The Institute has also received valuable assistance from various experts, volunteers andrelated agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty and Staff Changes
Mr. MATSUMOTO Takeshi, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was appointed to the United Nations Officeon Drugs and Crime Regional Office Southeast Asia and Pacific on 2 January 2018.
Mr. YUKAWA Tsuyoshi, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo High Public
Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2018.
Ms. WATANABE Ayuko, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo District Public
Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2018.
Mr. YOSHIMURA Koji, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tama Juvenile Training
School on 1 April 2018.
Mr. MINOURA Satoshi, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the International Affairs
Division, Minister's Secretariat on 1 April 2018.
Ms. AKASHI Fumiko, formerly professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the International Affairs
Division of the Minister's Secretariat on 1 April.
Mr. FUTAGOISHI Ryo, formerly attorney, coordinator of the Litigation Bureau, was appointed a professor
13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018of UNAFEI on 1 April 2018.
Mr. OTANI Junichiro, formerly public prosecutor of the Chiba District Public Prosecutors Office, wasappointed a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2018.
Mr. FURUHASHI Takuya, formerly director of Juvenile Correction of the Takamatsu Regional Correction
Headquarters, was appointed a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2018.
Mr. OHINATA Hidenori, formerly director of the planning and coordination department of the Niigata
Probation Office, was appointed a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2018.
Ms. KITAGAWA Mika, formerly probation officer of the Kanto Regional Parole Board, was appointed aprofessor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2018.
Mr. SENTA Keisuke, formerly director of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Takamatsu District Public
Prosecutors Office on 25 June 2018.
Mr. SETO Takeshi, formerly chief public prosecutor of the Tokushima District Public Prosecutors Office,
was appointed director of UNAFEI on 25 June 2018.

VIII. FINANCESThe Ministry of Justice primarily provides the Institute’s budget. UNAFEI’s total budget for its
programmes is approximately ¥70 million per year. Additionally, JICA and the ACPF provide assistance for
the Institute's international training courses and seminars.

14

WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2019

I. TRAINING
A. Training Courses & Seminars (Multinational)
1. The 171st International Senior Seminar
The 171st International Senior Seminar was held from 9 January to 7 February 2019. The main theme of
the Seminar was “Criminal Justice Response to Crime Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination”. Thirteen
overseas participants and six Japanese participants attended.
2. The 172nd International Training Course
The 172nd International Training Course was held from 15 May to 21 June 2019. The main theme of the
Course was the “Criminal Justice Response to Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants”. Twentyone overseas participants and seven Japanese participants attended.
3. The 173rd International Training Course
The 173rd International Training Course will be held from 21 August to 20 September 201p. The main
theme of the Course is "Tackling Violence against Women and Children Through Offender Treatment:
Prevention of Reoffending”. Government officials from across Southeast Asia and other parts of the world,
including Japan, and visiting experts and lecturers will attend.
4. The 22nd UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
UNAFEI’s annual general anti-corruption programme, the UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme, willtake place from October to November 2019. The main theme of the Programme is “Detection, Investigation,
Prosecution and Adjudication of High-Profile Corruption”. Approximately thirty overseas and Japaneseparticipants will attend.
5. The Thirteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
From 17 to 19 December 2019, UNAFEI will host the Thirteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governancein Tokyo, Japan. The main theme of the seminar will address anti-money-laundering measures and asset
recovery. Among other participants, 20 anti-corruption practitioners from the 10 ASEAN countries are
expected to attend as official delegates.
B. Training Course (Country Specific)
1. The Comparative Study of Myanmar and Japan to Improve Prison management
From 25 February to 7 March 2019, ten prison officials from Myanmar studied the topic of prison
management, including prison work and vocational training.
2. The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal
From 4-15 March 2019, ten Nepalese participants attended to study and compare practices in reference
to the theme of “Challenges to the Implementation of the New Criminal Procedure Code and the Sentencing
and Execution Act in Nepal”.
3. The RTI-SPP Exchange Programme for Viet Nam
From 18-22 February 2019, two Vietnamese participants discussed the amended criminal procedure code.
4. Training Course on Legal Technical Assistance for Viet Nam
From 18-22 February 2019, ten Vietnamese participants discussed the implementation of the amended
criminal procedure code.

15

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
5. Follow-up Seminar for the Third Phase Third Country Training Programme for Development of Effective
Community-based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMV Countries
From 22-24 April 2019, UNAFEI hosted the Follow-up Seminar for the Third Country Training Programme
for Development of Effective Community-based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMV Countries (Cambodia,
Laos, Myanmar, and Viet Nam).
6. Training Seminar for Timor-Leste Prison Officials
From 7-19 December 2019, 30 prison officials including senior officials from the Ministry of Justice ofTimor-Leste studied basic principles of managing offenders.

16

WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2019

Distribution of Participants by Professional Backgrounds and Countries(1st International Training Course - 172nd International Training Course, U.N.Human Rights Courses and 1 Special Course)

研修参加者・セミナー参加者

地域別・職種別一覧表（第1回国際研修から第172回国際研修まで）
As of 18 July 2019

Professional Background

Judicial and
Other
Administration

司法行政（矯正・保護行政を含む）

Judge

PublicProsecutors

PoliceOfficials

裁判官

検察官

警察官

Correctional
Officials(Adult)Correctional
Officials(Juvenile)

Probation
ParoleOfficers

Family Court
Investigation
Officers

Child
WelfareOfficers

Social
WelfareOfficers

Training &Research
Officers

保護観察官

家裁調査官

児童福祉職員

社会福祉職員Others

Total

その他

計

職名

Country/Area
国 ・ 地域名
1
Afghanistan
アフガニスタン2
Bangladesh
バングラデシュ3
Bhutanブータン
4Bruneiブルネイ
5
Cambodia
カンボジア
6
China
中
国
7
Georgiaグルジア
8Hong Kong
香港
9
India
イ ン ド
10
Indonesia
インドネシア
11
Iran
イ ラ ン
12
Iraq
イ ラ ク
13
Jordan
ヨルダン
14
Korea
韓国
15
Kyrgyzstan
キルギス
16
Laos
ラ オ ス
17
Malaysia
マレーシア
18
Maldives
モルディヴ
19
Mongolia
モンゴル
20Myanmar
ミャンマー
21
Nepal
ネパール
22
Oman
オマーン
23
Pakistan
パキスタン
24
Palestine
パレスチナ
25
Philippines
フィリピン
26
Saudi Arabia
サウジアラビア
27
Singapore
シンガポール
28
Sri Lanka
スリランカ
29
Taiwan台湾
30
Tajikistan
タジキスタン
31
Timor-Leste
東ティモール
32
Thailandタイ
33
Turkeyト ル コ
34United Arab Emirates
アラブ首長国連邦
35
Uzbekistan
ウズベキスタン
36
Viet nam
ベトナム
37
Yemen
イエメン
A S I A小計（アジア州）
1
Algeria
アルジェリア2
Botswana
ボツワナ
3
Cameroon
カメルーン
4
Cote d'Ivoire
コートジボアール
5 Democratic Republic of the Congo
コンゴ民主共和国
6
Egypt
エジプト
7
Ethiopia
エチオピア
8
Gambia
ガンビア
9
Ghana
ガ ー ナ
10
Guinea
ギ ニ ア
11
Kenya
ケ ニ ア
12
Lesothoレ ソ ト
13Liberiaリベリア
14Madagascar
マダガスカル
15
Malawi
マラウィ
16
Mali
マリ
17
Mauritiusモーリシャス
18
Moroccoモロッコ
19
Mozambique
モザンビーク
20
Namibia
ナミビア
21
Niger
ニジェール
22
Nigeria
ナイジェリア23
Somalia
ソマリア
24
South Africa
南アフリカ共和国
25
Seychelles
セーシェル
26
Sudan
スーダン
27
Swaziland
スワジランド28
Tanzania
タンザニア
29
Tunisia
チュニジア
30
Ugandaウガンダ
31
Zambiaザンビア
Zimbabwe
ジンバブエ
32
AFRICA小計（アフリカ州）
1
Australia
オーストラリア2
Cook Islands
クック諸島
3
Fiji
フィジー
4
Kiribati
キリバス
5
Marshall Islandマーシャル
6
Micronesia
ミクロネシア
7
Nauru
ナ ウ ル
8
New Zealand
ニュージーランド
9
Palau
パラオ
10
Papua New Guinea
パプアニューギニア
11
Samoa
サモア
12
Solomon Islands
ソロモン
13
Tonga
ト ン ガ
14
Vanuatu
バヌアツ
THE PACIFIC
小計（大洋州）1
Antigua and Barbuda
アンティグア・バーブーダ
2
Argentina
アルゼンチン
3
Barbados
バルバドス
4
Belizeベリーズ
5
Boliviaボリビア
6
Brazil
ブラジル
7
Chile
チ
リ
8
Colombia
コロンビア
9
Costa Rica
コスタリカ
10
Dominican Republic
ドミニカ共和国
11
Ecuador
エクアドル
12
El Salvador
エルサルバドル
13
Grenadaグレナダ
14
Guatemalaグアテマラ
15
Guyana
ガイアナ
16
Haiti
ハイチ
17
Honduras
ホンジュラス
18
Jamaica
ジャマイカ
19
Mexicoメキシコ
20
Nicaragua
ニカラグア
21
Panamaパ ナ マ
22Paraguay
パラグアイ
23
Peru
ペ ル ー
セントクリストファー・ネイヴィス
24
Saint Christopher and Nevis
25
Saint Lucia
セントルシア26Saint Vincent
セントビンセント27
Trinidad and Tobago
トリニダード・トバゴ
28
U.S.A.
米国
29
Uruguay
ウルグアイ
30
Venezuela
ベネズエラ
NORTH & SOUTH AMERICA
小計（アメリカ州）
1
Albania
アルバニア
2
Armenia
アルメニア
3
Azerbaijan
アゼルバイジャン
4
Bulgaria
ブルガリア
5Estonia
エストニア
6 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia マケドニア旧ユーゴスラビア共和国
7
Hungaryハンガリー
8
Lithuania
リトアニア
9
Moldovaモルドバ
10Polandポーランド
11
Ukraineウクライナ
EUROPE
小計（欧州）
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
国連薬物・犯罪オフィス
JAPAN
日
本
1
TOTAL
合
計
125

11
24
4
1
13
22
15
23
5
6
1
13
1
14
24
6
3
12
38
22
2
23
5
11
24
12
1
28
2
1
15
2
384

9
15

3
5

1
2
13

5

5
21
2

51
1

46
1

19
2

4
5

2
6

249
4

1
8
2
491

229

5

2

12
3
5

271
2
1
1
4
4
3

6

1
1
2

9
2
4
1
18
12
9

33
8
3
3
53
7
7
5
1
1
18
1
3
4
29

2
2
3
2
2
5
4
14
1

教育・研究・
調査機関職員
1
1

4

6

2

2
1

18
23
4
3

10
24
12
3
1
3

1
5

5
22
23

矯正官
（少年）

7
10
1
12
55
33
8
8
7
6
2
10
51
8
3
11
34
4
48
1
44
7
12
25
2

2
4
2
1
3

6

矯正官
（成人）

8
31
7
15
6
5
2
36

37
2

3
1

9
1
3

1

3
2
6

1
6

5

2
2

4

3

8

3
2

1

6

3

4
2
1

1

2
3
3
8

1

11
3
10
20
1

3

2
1
16

3
1

10
11

9

20

1

40

82

4

1
22

3

1

1
7

1

3
3

8

1
4

2

2

5
1
1

7
1
1
1

7
1

1
1
1

1
6

1

4
49

51

29

3

1

1

1
10

2

18
2

1

2
1

1
1
2
1
3

1
1
1
1

1
2
2
1
1
1

1
1

2
4

1
3
1
1

1
44
1
7
1
1

39

1

7
1
1
3
38
1
9

1
17
5
3
2

1

6
2

1

38

3

1
19

2

2

0

1
4
1
3
3

2

1
1

4
1
1

1
2

6

7

4
4
13
2
9
1
5
6
8
105

3

31

22

17

4
1
1
1
2
26
2
2
7
4
72
1
2
2
2

1

1

1
1
1
1

1

1
2

2
1

2

22
1
3

0

1

2
1

10

4

1

1
1
1
10
1
1
4
2
37

9
2

0

4
1
21
1

1

4
1
1

0

0

3

1

5
1

1
1

1
5

22
1
2
5

1

1
1

2

2
3
2

31
4
6
1
4
5
1
1
3
1
8
2
2

4
2

1

1

1
1

1
2

1

1

1
1
1
1

1

1
5

1
1

1
1
1
4

10

8
1
4
1

1

5
9
5
1
1
2

1

2
1
1

1

2

13

1
1
1

1
32
1
1
1

22

1
49

3
12
114
2

17

3

2

1

2

1

1
4

1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
7

2
2

4
5

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

1
1

119
624

212
527

334
716

113
901

108
422

101
146

231
358

71
76

38
45

2
57

48
115

1
1
1
93
146

32
79
23
6
13
41
1
82
101
139
42
32
14
118
3
40
143
27
9
28
111
5
100
9
158
17
74
130
21
4
2
212
8
1
9
45
4
1,883
6
11
5
18
11
16
5
2
8
7
68
3
1
1
2
4
3
10
3
7
1
15
1
9
5
20
2
25
2
7
8
12
298
3
4
57
1
5
2
2
2
3
74
11
8
19
8
199
2
7
3
3
2
64
8
14
16
1
6
12
1
5
4
1
11
11
5
1
16
12
27
2
3
2
2
1
3
15
260
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
22
1
1,470
4,133

17

Chileチリ
Colombia
コロンビア
Costa Rica
コスタリカ
Dominican Republic
ドミニカ共和国
Ecuador
エクアドル
El Salvador
エルサルバドル
Grenadaグレナダ
Guatemala
グアテマラ
Guyana
ガイアナ
Haiti
ハイチ
Honduras
ホンジュラスJamaicaジャマイカ
Mexicoメキシコ
Nicaragua
ニカラグア
Panamaパ ナ マParaguay
パラグアイ
Peru
ペ ル ー
セントクリストファー・ネイヴィス
Saint Christopher and Nevis
Saint Lucia
セントルシアSaint Vincent
セントビンセントTrinidad and Tobago
トリニダード・トバゴ
U.S.A.
米国
Uruguay
ウルグアイ
Venezuela
ベネズエラ
NORTH & SOUTH AMERICA
小計（アメリカ州）
1
Albania
アルバニア
2
Armenia
アルメニア
3
Azerbaijan
アゼルバイジャン
4
Bulgaria
ブルガリア
5Estonia
エストニア
6 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia マケドニア旧ユーゴスラビア共和国
7
Hungaryハンガリー
8
Lithuania
リトアニア
9
Moldovaモルドバ
10Polandポーランド
11
Ukraineウクライナ
EUROPE
小計（欧州）
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
国連薬物・犯罪オフィス
JAPAN
日
本
1
TOTAL
合
計
125
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

18

1
3
3

1
5

1
2
5

2

1

1
1

2

2
3
2

4
6
1
4
5
1
1
3
1
8
2
2

2
1
1

1
2

1

1

1
1
1
1

1

1
5

1
1

1
1
1
4

10

1

8
1
4
1

5
9
5
1
1
2

2
1
1

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018

1

1

2

13

1
1

1
1
32
1
1
1

22

1
49

3
12
114
2

17

3

2

1

2

1

1
4

1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
7

2
2

4
5

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

1
1

119
624

212
527

334
716

113
901

108
422

101
146

231
358

71
76

38
45

2
57

48
115

1
1
1
93
146

8
14
16
1
6
12
1
5
4
1
11
11
5
1
16
12
27
2
3
2
2
1
3
15
260
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
22
1
1,470
4,133

MAIN STAFF OF UNAFEI
Faculty:

Mr. SETO Takeshi
Ms. ISHIHARA Kayo
Mr. FUTAGOISHI Ryo
Ms. KITAGAWA Mika
Mr. OTANI Junichiro
Mr. YAMADA Masahiro
Mr. HIRANO Nozomu
Mr. OHINATA Hidenori
Mr. WATANABE Hiroyuki
Dr. YAMAMOTO Mana
Mr. FURUHASHI Takuya
Mr. Thomas L. SCHMID

Secretariat:
Mr. FUJITA Takeshi
Mr. TOYODA Yasushi
Ms. KIKUCHI Yoshimi

Director
Deputy Director
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Chief of Information and Public Relations
Professor
Chief of Research Division
Professor
Linguistic Adviser
Chief of Secretariat
Chief of Training and Hostel Management
Affairs Section
Chief of General and Financial Affairs Section

AS OF 31 DECEMBER 201819

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 20182018 VISITING EXPERTS
THE 168TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Dr. Roy Godson 	

Professor Emeritus
Georgetown University
United States

Dr. Matti Joutsen 	Special Advisor
Thailand Institute of JusticeFinlandDr. Kittipong Kittayarak

Executive Director
Thailand Institute of Justice
Thailand

Mr. Severino H. Gaña, Jr.

Senior Deputy State Prosecutor
Department of Justice
Philippines

Ms. Lula Asaad

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer
Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)FIFTH UNAFEI CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR FRENCHSPEAKING AFRICAN COUNTRIES
Ms. Céline VERDIER

Vice-prèsidente chargée de l'instruction
Tribunal de Grande Instance de Brest
FranceMr. Julien Savoye
Program Officer in the Terrorism Prevention Team	UNODC Regional Office for West and Central Africa Immeuble
AbbaryFranceMr. Soufiane El Hamdi

The International Institute for Justiceand the Rule of Law (IIJ)
MoroccoTHE 169TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Mr. Wasawat Chawalitthamrong

Head of Cybercrime Sector One
Bureau of Technology and Cyber Crime
Department of Special Investigation
Ministry of Justice
Thailand

Mr. Gregory Matthew Millard

Resident Agent in Charge
Chiang-Mai Resident Office
DEA Far East Region
United States

20

APPENDIX
Mr. Celso Eduardo Faria Coracini

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

THE 170TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Ms. Anja Busse

Programming Officer
Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation
Section on Drug Prevention and Health Branch
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

Dr. Alexander David Wodak

Emeritus Consultant, Alcohol and Drug
Service, St. Vincent’s Hospital, Visiting
Fellow, Australian Drug Law Reform
Foundation, Director, Alcohol and Drug
Service / St. Vincent’s Hospital /Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation
Australia

Dr. Sheldon Xiaodong Zhang

Professor/Chair
School of Criminology and Justice Studies
University of Massachusetts Lowell
United States

THE 21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMME
Mr. M. Sc. Bǒstjan Lamešič

Vice Chair of the Economic Crime Teamand Assistant to the National Member for Slovenia
Eurojust		
Ms. Corinna Wong
Assistant Director
Community Relations Department
Independent Commission Against Corruption
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
Dato’ Sri Ahmad Khusairi Bin Yahaya

Director
Intelligence Division
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
Malaysia								

21ANNUAL REPORT FOR 20182018 UNAFEI PARTICIPANTS
THE 168TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Overseas Participants
Mr. Tshulthrim DORJI

Superintendent of Police
Division-VII, Trongsa, Bhutan
Royal Bhutan Police
BhutanMr. Samuel Miranda ARRUDA

Federal Prosecutor
Criminal Division in Ceara
Federal Prosecution Service
BrazilMr. Tra Vincent N'GUESSAN

Deputy Prosecutor
Justice Court of Man
Ministry of JusticeCote d'Ivoire

Mr. Agus Akhyudi
MANGKUADININGRATJudge/Chief
Rengat District Court
Supreme Court
Indonesia

Mr. Khee SIMEUANG

Judge Assistance
The Commercial Chamber
The People's Supreme Court
Lao PDR

Mr. Mohamed FAZEEN

Chief Inspector of Police
Deputy Head of General Investigation Department
Maldives Police Service
Maldives

Mr. Hassan HANEEF

Superintendent of Police
Head of Family and Children Protection Department
Maldives Police Service
Maldives

Mr. Abdelkader TAYBI

Deputy of Social and Cultural Office
Office of Social and Cultural Work in Favour of
Inmates and Their Reintegration
The General Delegation to Penitentiary
Administration and Reintegration
MoroccoMr. Myint Maung

Police Major
Police Officer Teaching School
Myanmar Police Force
Ministry of Home Affairs
Myanmar22

APPENDIX
Mr. Ahmed G. H. RISHA

Prosecutor
Civil Appeal Department and File Reviewing
Palestinian Public Prosecution
Palestine

Mr. Terry Uralam LUIAssistant Director
Crime Prevention and Restorative Justice Coordination Branch
Department of Justice and Attorney General
Papua New Guinea

Ms. Helen Vagivaro ROALAKONAState Prosecutor/Team Leader
Serious Corruption and Dishonesty Unit
Port Moresby Public Prosecutors Office
Papua New Guinea

Mr. Mark Palus YANGEN

Director
Criminal Investigation Division
Crimes Division
Department of Police
Papua New Guinea

Ms. Marina Amtalao AVANCENA

Deputy Chief
Police Strategy Management UnitIntelligence Group
Philippine National Police
Philippines

Ms. Mahamuni Kumari Magliyan
ABEYRATNE

Judge
Embilipitiya High Court
Judicial Service Commission
Ministry of Justice
Sri Lanka

Mr. Sanjeewa Manojith
DHARMARATNA

Deputy Inspector General of Police
Recruitment, Training and International
Relations Range
Sri Lanka Police

Mr. Handapangoda Don Lushan
Thusith MUDALIGE

Deputy Solicitor General
Criminal
Attorney General’s Department
Sri Lanka

Mr. Peerapong PAREERURK

Judge
Phuket Provincial Court
Court of Justice
Thailand

Ms. Pattraporn POMMANUCHATIP

Provincial Public Prosecutor
Civil Rights Protection, Legal Aid and Execution
Office of the Attorney General
Thailand

Ms. Kattiya RATANADILOK

Director
Research and Development InstituteDepartment of Juvenile Observation and Protection
Thailand23

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
Ms. LEUNG Ho Yee Elis(Course Counsellor)

Japanese Participants
Mr. HONDA Susumu

Senior Community Relations Officer
Regional Office (Kowloon West)
Community Relations Department
Independent Commission Against Corruption
Hong Kong
Special Assistant Judge
Yokohama District/ Family Court Kawasaki Branch

Mr. KATADA Yasushi

Judge
Kyoto District Court

Mr. OKUDA Yukio

Probation Officer
Tohoku Regional Parole Board
Yokohama Prison

Mr. SHIONOYA Takashi

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. TSUTSUMI Yasushi

Public Prosecutor
Osaka High Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. UEKUSA Taro

Chief Inspector
Safety Division, Community Safety Bureau
National Police Agency

Mr. WAKABAYASHI Tetsuya

Deputy Director
Sasebo Juvenile Training School

FIFTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING PROGRAMMEFOR FRENCH-SPEAKING AFRICAN COUNTRIESOverseas Participants
M. BAKO Souleymane

Juge d'Instruction près le
Tribunal de Grande Instance de Ouagadougou
Burkina Faso

Mme. DANGO Florence

Juge du siège
Tribunal de Grande Instance de Ouagadougou
Burkina Faso

M. HIE Djibril

Chef de Service de la Scolarite et desstagesEcole Nationale de Police
Burkina Faso

M. SAWADOGO Sidi Becaye

Substitut du procureur général parquet
généralCour d'Appel de Ouagadougou
Burkina Faso

M. DEZAI Alain-Joel

Juge de l'application des Peines
Tribunal de Première Instance d'Abidjan Plateau
Côte d'Ivoire

24

APPENDIX
M. KONE Bénogo

Conseiller JuridiqueGendarmerie Nationale
Côte d'Ivoire

M. KOUAKOU Antonin

Juge d'Instruction
Tribunal de Yopougon
Côte d'Ivoire

M. KOUAME Yao

Procureur de la République Adjoint
Tribunal de Première Instance de Plateau
Côte d'Ivoire

M. OSSOHOU Avis Léopold

Chef de section d'Enquêtes
Direction de la Police Criminelle
Côte d'Ivoire

M. ABDOULAYE Amadou

Président Chambre Correctionelle
Cour d'Appel de Bamako
Mali

M. AG HOUSSA Mohamedine

Juge d'Instruction au pôle judiciaire
spécialiséTribunal de Grande Instance de la commune VI de Bamako
Mali

M. SANOU Gaoussou

Substitut General
Cour d'appel de Kayes
Mali

M. TRAORE Hamadoun Bilal

Commandant Brigade d'Investigations
judiciaires (BIJ)
Direction de la Police Judiciaire
Mali

M. Mohamed Ahmed BABANA

Président de la Cour Ciminelle du Tagont
Mauritanie

M. BRAHIM SIYID Brahim

Chef Service Investigation crime financière
Direction centrale lutte contre les crimes économiques
Mauritanie

M. ELWAGHEF Abdellahi Ahmedyanja

L'inspection générale
L'inspecteur au Ministère de la Justice en Mauritanie
Mauritanie

M. NAHY Mohamed Bouya

Directeur Général
Direction des Etudes, de la Législation etde la Coopération
Ministère de la Justice
Mauritanie

M. ABDOU OUABI LAMINE Aliou

Premier Substitut du Procureur au pôlejudiciaire spécialisé en matière économiqueet financière
Tribunal de Grande Instance hors Classe de Niamey
Niger

25

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
M. HAROUNA OFFEN Mounkaïla

Président du Pôle judiciaire spécialisé enmatière économique et financière
Tribunal de grande instance hors classe de Niamey
Niger

M. MAHAMAN Issoufou

Directeur adjoint de la Police Judiciaire
PoliceNiger

M. SALAO Youssouf

Juge d'instruction du pôle anti-terroriste prèsle Tribunal de Grande Instance hors classe de Niamey,
Pôle judiciaire aunti-terroriste
Niger

Mme. BONKONYA Catherine Wassa

Commandant Commissariat de Police
Lemba
Commissariat Provincial Ville de Kinshasa
République Démocratique du Congo

Mme. KANJINGAMBA Elysée
MatumpuJuge
Pouvoir Judiciaire
République Démocratique du Congo

M. KIPAKA Basilimu BaudouinConseiller à la Cour d'Appel Kinshasa
Pouvoir Judiciaire
République Démocratique du Congo

M. MUSEME Ngaruka Christophe

Premier Substitut du Procureur de laRépubliquePouvoir Judiciaire
République Démocratique du Congo

M. BA Mouhamadou Lamine

Président du Tribunal d'instance de Grande
Instance de Pikine Guediawaye
SénégalM. DIOUF Augustin

Juge d'instruction chargé du 6ème cabinet
Tribunal de Grand Instance Hors classe de Dakar
SénégalM. DIOUF Moustapha

Chef de la Division de la Formation etDirecteur des Etudes
Direction de l'Ecole Nationale de Police et de laFormation Permanente
SénégalM. SARR Alioune

Procureur de la République près le
Tribunal de Grande Instance de M'bour
SénégalM. ABADJE Breme

Directeur Adjoint de la Législation, desEtudes du Suivi
Direction de la Législation, des Etudes du Suivi
Tchad

26

APPENDIX
M. ABDERAMANE Ahmat Abrass

Juge d'instruction substitut du procureurde la RépubliqueTribunal de Grande Instance de N'Djamena
Tchad

M. Abdoulaye BONO KONO

Juge au siège
Tribunal de Grande Instance de N'Djamena
Tchad

M. NADJITESSEM Simplice Togoto

Substitut du procureur général près la Courd'Appel de MONGO
Tchad

THE 169TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants
Mr. Rodrigo LEITE PRADO

Federal Prosecutor
Criminal Division of the Federal Prosecution Office in
Minas Gerais
Federal Prosecution Service of Brazil

Ms. Yasmine Nagnouma KEITA

Judge
Court of First Instance of Abidjan
Ministry of JusticeCote d'Ivoire

Mr. Maurice Kouadio N'DRI

Magistrate
Tribunal of Abengourou
Ministry of JusticeCote d'Ivoire

Ms. NKULU Mbayo Marie Claude

First Prosecutor's Assistant
Prosecutor Justice Department
Gombe Court
Democratic Republic of the Congo

Ms. TSHIBOLA Mulumba Annie

Judge
High Court of Gombe
Superior Magistrate Counsel
Democratic Republic of the Congo

Mr. Mostafa Hicham Mohamed
Osman ELBASTAWISSY

Senior Public Prosecutor
Centre of Cairo Criminal Prosecution OfficePublic Prosecution
Egypt

Mr. Mohamed Ahmed HABIB

Judge
Criminal Section, Technical Office of the Court
Egyptian Court of Cassation, The Egyptian Judicial Authority
Egypt

Ms. Maxine Tuedian BERNARD

Detective Inspector
Narcotics Division
Jamaica Constabulary Force
Jamaica27

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
Ms. Aida Syeliza Binti ABDULJALILHead of Data/Analysis
Narcotics Crime Investigation Department
Royal Malaysia Police
Malaysia

Mr. Chandra Segaran
SUBRAMANIAM

Head of Legal/Investigation Unit
Narcotics Crime Investigation Department
Royal Malaysia Police
Malaysia

Mr. Modibo SACKO

Technical Adviser/Magistrate
Secretary General
Ministry of JusticeMali

Mr. Cheick Sala SANGARE

Prosecutor/Magistrate
Court of District Ⅱ Bamako
Ministry of JusticeMali

Mr. Asghar ALI

Assistant Inspector General of Police
Human Resource Management
National Highways and Motorway Police
Ministry of Communications
Pakistan

Mr. Ismail M. I. HAMMAD

Public Prosecutor
Palestinian Public Prosecution
Palestine

Mr. Augustus Apelis Mathew BRAY

State Prosecutor
Justice and Attorney General
Public Prosecutors Office
Papua New Guinea

Ms. Marie Catherine Reniva
NOLASCO

Executive Officer for Operations
Anti-Organized and Transnational Crime
Division
National Bureau of Investigation
Philippines

Mr. Roshan Wijesinghe
GAMMANPILA IMIYAGE DONIn Charge of Mount Lavinia
Division
Sri Lanka Police
Sri Lanka

Mr. Palinda Prabhanthi Rashmi
Edirisinghe Hewa SINGAPPULIGE

Additional Secretary (Judicial)
Legal Division
Ministry of Justice, Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka

Mr. Abdushukur Ibrohimjon
IBROHIMZODA

Judge
Court of Gisar Region
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tajikistan
Tajikistan

28

APPENDIX
Mr. Khurshed Iskandar ISOZODA

Judge
Court of Somoni District
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tajikistan
Tajikistan

Mr. Nitchan HADSARANG

Judge
Chiang Mai Juvenile and Family Court
Court of Justice
ThailandMr. Valentyn SHMITKO

Senior Detective
Main Department of Detectives
National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine
UkraineMr. Ihor Vitaliyovych YASELSKYI

Judge
Lutsk City Court
UkraineMr. Murod Abduraximovich
MAVLYANOV

Senior Investigator, Major
Investigative Department
Ministry of Internal Affairs
Uzbekistan

Japanese Participants
Mr. AKIMA Shunichi

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. AMAYASU Ryo

Official of Health, Labour and Welfare
Narcotic Control Department
Tohoku Regional Bureau of Health and Welfare

Mr. FUKUSHIMA Yoshihiko

Public Prosecutor
Chiba District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. KONISHI Takahiro

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr. NAKAJIMA Hirokazu

Deputy Director
International Organized Crime Base
3rd Regional Coast Guard Headquarters

Ms. SADA Yoshiko

Public Prosecutor
Kyoto District Public Prosecutors Office

Ms. TAKEUCHI Yoshie

Chief Inspector
Organized Crime Department, Criminal Affairs Bureau
National Police Agency

29

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018

THE 170TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants
Mr. Eduardo Tomio TAKATA

Federal Penitentiary Agent, Special Class
National Penitentiary Department
Ministry of Justice
BrazilMr. Somlith MANICHANH

Deputy Head of Division
Prisoners Management Division, Prisons andRehabilitations Police Department
Ministry of Public Security
Laos

Mr. Suhaizak Bin AB. WAHAB

Assistant Commissioner of Prison
Prison Policy Division
Malaysian Prison Department

Mr. Syahrul Amri Bin ABD MUTALIB

Parole Officer
Parole & Community Services Division
Malaysian Prison Department

Mr. Abdul Sattar ABDUL HAMEED

Chief Judge
Legal Division
Drug Court
Maldives

Ms. Joanna Marie Helisa FIGAROJOLICOEUR

Hospital Officer
Mauritius Prison Service

Mr. Deepak Roomesh GUNNOO

Senior Hospital Officer
Mauritius Prison Service

Mr. Thet Paing Soe

Staff Officer
Prisons Department
Ministry of Home Affairs
MyanmarMs. Nanja LIMBO

Senior Superintendent
Structured and Support Rehabilitative Programmes
Namibian Correctional Service

Mr. Najeeb ULLAH

Deputy Director
Home & Tribal Affairs Department
Directorate of Reclamation and Probation
Pakistan

Mr. Eko Kubi MANGERE

Senior Inspector
Detainee Rehabilitation DivisionPapua New Guinea Correctional Service

Mr. John Junior SMITH

Principal Correction Officer
Security and Rehabilitation Operations Division
Samoa Prisons and Corrections Services

30

APPENDIX
Mr. Nishantha Shanthilal
HAPUARACHCHI

Judge
Civil Appellate High Court of Galle
Sri Lanka

Ms. Pareena NOKCHAN

Senior Probation Officer
Bangkok 12 Probation Office
Department of Probation
Ministry of Justice
ThailandMr. Yuen Tak LAM

Principal Officer
Rehabilitation Unit
Hong Kong Correctional Services Department

Mr. Gun Young NA

Senior Inspector
Daegu Detention Center
Korea

Ms. Ma. Beverly Duque AMPO

Chief Probation and Parole Officer,
Officer-In-Charge of the Assistant Regional Director
Parole and Probation Administration
Department of Justice
Philippines

Mr. Santiago LINDAYAG, Jr.

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Parole and Probation Administration
Department of Justice
Philippines

Japanese Participants
Mr. ANDO Yo

Instructor
Seto Juvenile Training School

Mr. KABE Tsuyoshi

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

Ms. KOMINO Keiko

Probation Officer
Mito Probation Office

Mr. NAGAI Toru

Director
General Affairs Division
Chiba Prison

Ms. TANIGUCHI Maki

Judge
Osaka District Court

Mr. TONE Kazumasa

Probation Officer
Chugoku Regional Parole Board

Mr. YAMANE Masashi

Senior Officer for Smuggling Countermeasures
Tokai Hokuriku Regional Bureau of Health and Welfare

31

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018

THE 21ST UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMME
Overseas Participants
Mr. Daniel Silvestre de LIMA

Federal Police Chief
Police Station to Combat Corruption/Diversion of
Public Resources Police Superintendence in Pernambuco
Brazil Federal Police

Mr. Gustavo NOGAMI

Federal Prosecutor/Administrative Chief Prosecutor
Federal Prosecution in Mato Grosso State
Federal Prosecution Service of Brazil

Ms. Leakena SAUT

Official
Department of Legal Affairs, Complaint and International,
Anti-Corruption Unit
Cambodia

Mr. Mohamed Shaaban KASSEM

Chief Prosecutor
Public Funds, Public Prosecution
Egypt

Mr. Dulat OMAR

Chief Prosecutor
Prosecutor’s Office of Korgalzhyn District
Kazakhstan

Mr. Abdulhamid Farooque LOW

Senior Investigations Officer
Asset Tracing
Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission
Kenya

Mr. Khamsone Sone PHIMMASONE

Acting Chief of Inspection DivisionInspection Department, Ministry of Justice
Lao PDR

Mr. Tsiry Harivelo RAZAFIMANDIMBYInspector and Advisor
General Direction
Independent Anti-Corruption Bureau
Madagascar

Mr. Chrispin K.C KHUNGA

Director/Head of Legal and Prosecution
Anti-Corruption Bureau
MalawiMr. Westmoreland Anak AJOM

Assistant Commissioner
Forensic Division/Forensic Accounting Unit, MalaysianAnti-Corruption Commission
Malaysia

Mr. Ismail NADEEM

Deputy HeadGeneral Investigation Department/Crime
Investigation Command
Maldives Police Service
Maldives

Mr. Pascoal Francisco JUSSA

Second Criminal Section
Nampula Superior Court of Appeal
Mozambique32

APPENDIX
Mr. Myo Zaw Win

Director
Bureau of Special Investigation
Ministry of Home Affairs
MyanmarMr. Gokul BANSTOLA

Under Secretary
Special Investigation Division Commission for theInvestigation of Abuse of Authority
Nepal

Mr. Sada MOUSSA

Deputy Prosecutor
Specialized Judicial Centre
Niger

Mr. Abid Hussain KHAMISANI

Deputy District Public Prosecutor
Criminal Prosecution Service
Department of Law
Province of Sindh
Pakistan

Mr. Pare Kupson KUIAP

Legal Officer
Fraud & Anti-Corruption, Police
Papua New Guinea

Mr. Christopher Thomas Bautista MESA

Executive Officer
Cagayan Valley Regional Office (CAVRO) National
Bureau of Investigation
Philippines

Mr. Adrian Bernard Conrad SAMUELS

Prosecutor
Prosecutions
Anti-Corruption Commission
Sierra Leone

Ms. Kankanamge Medhavi Anuradha
SIRIWARDHANA

Assistant Director
Legal Division
Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption
Sri Lanka

Mr. Mahir Abdallah SHALLAKEY

DirectorSociety Security Police, Khartoum State Police
Sudan

Mr. Parviz ODINAMAHMADZODA

Main Inspector
Main Department on Prevention of Corruption
Agency under the state financial control and fightagainst corruption
Tajikistan

Mr. Henrique Lopes SOARESPrevention Specialist
Anti-Corruption Commission
Timor-Leste

Ms. Anna DZHAVAHA

Chief Specialist - Legal Counsel
International Law Division/Legal Department
National Anti-Corruption Bureau
Ukraine33

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2018
Mr. Oleksii GEIKO

Senior Detective
Main Detectives Department
National Anti-Corruption Bureau
UkraineMr. Matchanboy Sadullayevich
MATCHANOV

Judge
Mirabad District Court
Supreme Court
Uzbekistan
Head of Criminal Law Division
Criminal Law Faculty
Hanoi Procuratorate University
Viet Nam

Ms. Yen Hai HOANG

Ms. Charity MATUMBI

Japanese Participants
Mr. NAGANO Kiminori

Acting General Manager
Legal Services Department
Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission
Zimbabwe
Judge
Hiroshima High Court, Okayama Branch

Ms. KURODA Maki

Judge
Niigata District Court

Mr. NISHIGAYA Yusuke

Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. BONO Yoshitaka

Prosecutor
Nagoya District Public Prosecutors Office, Toyohashi Branch

Mr. NAKAJIMA Kenichi

Prosecutor
Fukuoka District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. SUGITA Mitsuhiro

Chief Inspector
Organized Crime Department, Criminal Affairs Bureau
National Police Agency

Mr. MURAKAMI Kaoru

Securities Investigator
Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission

34

PART TWORESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES
No. 108

Work Product of the 171st International Senior Seminar“Criminal Justice Response to Crimes Motivated by Intolerance andDiscrimination”

UNAFEIVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSINTRODUCTION TO HATE CRIMES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT:INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
Cristina M. Finch*1

I. INTRODUCTION TO HATE CRIMES
A. Purpose and Origin of Hate Crime Legislation
Hate crimes are message crimes; they are meant to send the message that your kind is not wanted here.
That’s why a strong government response is necessary to counteract that message.
The concept of hate crimes started in the United States after the U.S. civil war. State and local authorities
rarely prosecuted crimes against African Americans perpetrated by Whites. A series of laws were passed
to give the federal government jurisdiction over such crimes. In the civil rights era, the Civil Rights Act of1968 was passed which made it a crime to use, or threaten to use, force to wilfully interfere with any person
because of race, colour, religion, or national origin and because the person is participating in a federally
protected activity, such as voting, or helping another person to do so.
However, in the late 1990s, it had become clear to civil society and law enforcement that the face of hate
was changing. Different communities were being affected, and it was clear that the current federal hatecrime law was inadequate.
One of the reasons that we knew this was because the US was now collecting hate crime statistics. On
April 23, 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which required the Attorney General tocollect data “about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or
ethnicity.” Subsequent acts of Congress have added bias against persons with disabilities, gender and gender
identity.
In 2009, Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate
Crimes Prevention Act, expanding the federal definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation, gender
identity, gender and disability and expanding the ability of the federal government to prosecute crimes.
2

II. UNDERSTANDING HATE CRIME AND HATE CRIME LEGISLATION1The OSCE participating States have defined hate crime as a criminal offence committed with a bias
motive.
ODIHR’s publication, “Hate Crime Laws: A Practical Guide” provides the following explanation of hatecrimes and related concepts.
The first element of a hate crime is that the act committed is a crime, such as assault or damaging
property. Hate crimes always require a base offence to have occurred. If there is no underlying crime, there
is no hate crime.
The second element of a hate crime is that the perpetrator must commit the criminal act with a particularmotive, referred to as “bias”. It is this element of bias motive that differentiates hate crimes from ordinary* Head, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Department, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. These
lectures draw upon existing materials created by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and are
not the original work of the author. The content of these lectures come primarily from ODIHR’s training curricula for police(TAHCLE programme) and for prosecutors (PAHCT programme). More information on ODIHR’s programmes and publications
can be found here: https://www.osce.org/odihr/tolerance-and-non-discrimination
1
This section taken from “Hate Crime Laws: A Practical Guide,” OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights,
2009.

37

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
crimes. This means that the perpetrator intentionally chose the target of the crime because of some protectedcharacteristic.
The target may be one or more people, or it may be property associated with a group that shares aparticular characteristic. The perpetrator might target the victim because of actual or even perceived
affiliation with the group. For example, a perpetrator may attack someone because he thinks the victim isgay. If the victim is not gay, the attack can still be prosecuted as a hate crime because the perpetrator
selected his victim because of sexual orientation.
Hate crimes could include murder, an act of intimidation, threats, property damage, assault, or any othercriminal offence.
A. Protected Characteristics
A protected characteristic is a common feature shared by a group, such as race, religion, ethnicity,
nationality, gender, sexual orientation or any other similar common factor that is fundamental to theiridentity.
B. Hate versus Bias
A hate crime does not require that the perpetrator feels hate. Instead, it requires only that the crime iscommitted out of bias motivation. Bias means that a person holds prejudiced ideas about a group. Since hatecrimes are committed because of what the targeted person, people or property represent, the perpetrator
may have no feelings at all about an individual victim.
C. Discrimination
Acts of discrimination lack the essential element of an act constituting a crime. Discrimination issues aredealt with under civil law, even if the penalty is a criminal sanction. The legal and institutional frameworks
governing discrimination and hate crimes are different.
D. Hate Speech
Many nations have hate speech laws that make certain types of racist speech a crime. Hate crime laws
may apply to racist or other biased speech that involve threats of violence or damage to property.
E. Genocide
Genocide involves intentional conduct aimed at destroying, in whole or part, a national, ethnic, racial or
religious group. Hate crimes can be part of the process that leads to genocide. Individual acts of genocide
may be considered to constitute hate crimes.
F. Types of Hate Crime Laws
A “substantive offence” is a separate offence that includes the bias motive as an integral element of thelegal definition of the offence. Within the OSCE region, this kind of hate crime law is relatively rare. The
United States (both at the federal and state levels), the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom have createdspecific offences that incorporate a bias motive. Most other countries have not.
Penalty enhancements, which are sometimes referred to as “aggravating sentencing clauses” or“aggravating circumstances clauses”, can also be used to create a hate crime law. Simply put, they increase
the penalty for a base offence when it is committed with a bias motive. The majority of hate crime laws in
the OSCE region fall within this description.
[general (to all criminal offences) or specific (to some criminal offences)]

III. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Hate crime legislation is grounded in international and regional obligations to combat discrimination andto protect and promote equality. There are universal and regional sources of international obligations tocombat hate crimes, including:• The UN treaties and conventions;• OSCE commitments
38

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS•

Case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

A. Universal Declaration of Human Rights• “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the humanfamily”;•

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of
any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,property, birth or other status.”;

B. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)• Taking the provisions as a whole it obligates states to investigate violence committed against individuals
and to discharge these duties without discrimination.
•

Articles 6 & 7 obligate states to investigate violations of right to life & inhumane treatment committed
by public or private actors;32•

Article 2 echoes same principle of equality of UNDHR; “Each State Party to the present Covenant
undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction
the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or otherstatus.”•Article 26 requires equality before the law, equal protection of the law and protection from discrimination:“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protectionof the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equaland effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

C. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination (CERD)
Represents the international standard for combating discrimination
Obligation to punish racist violence:
ARTICLE 4 (a): Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial
superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to suchacts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any
assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;
Broad interpretation of the concept of “race”:“Race” refers to groups of people who are considered distinct due to physical characteristics such as skincolour. Many people are unaware that “race” is a social construct and has no basis as a scientific concept.
The use of the term race therefore remains prevalent and is used in international and national legal texts. If
there is no definition of race at a national level, it can be useful to refer to international and regional
instruments which provide definitions or explanations.
ARTICLE 1: defines the related term, “racial discrimination”, as:“[T]he term ‘racial discrimination’ shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on
race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing
the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in thepolitical, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
2

UNHRC “General Comment 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligations Imposed by the Covenant”, Human Rights
Committee, Eightieth Session, adopted on 29 March 2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para. 6-8.

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
OSCE Commitments on Hate Crime: The OSCE’s Ministerial Council has repeatedly asserted that hatecrimes not only affect individual human rights to equality and non-discrimination but have the potential tolead to conflict and violence on a wider scale. As the OSCE requires consensus for any decisions orcommitments, every participating State has actively agreed to abide by these commitments. While OSCE
commitments are not legally binding, they form a set of principles which bear moral weight on states. The
Ministerial Council Decision in 2009 (9/09) on Combating Hate Crime remains one of the most comprehensive
commitments by the international community concerning state obligations to address hate crime.
Participating States, inter alia, committed themselves to:• Collect, and make public, data on hate crimes;• Enact, where appropriate, specific, tailored legislation to combat hate crimes;• Take appropriate measures to encourage victims;• Develop professional training and capacity-building activities for law-enforcement;• prosecution and judicial officials dealing with hate crimes;• Promptly investigate hate crimes and ensure that the motives of those convicted of hate crimes are
acknowledged and publicly condemned by the relevant authorities and by the political leadership.

IV. IMPACT OF HATE CRIMES AND ROLE4 OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN
PREVENTION3
The impact of hate crimes and hate incidents on victims is severe. These include:• Fear and terror;• Isolation;• Denial;• Self-blame;• Anxiety, loss of hope and spirit;• Anger.
The mental health symptoms or behaviours that are self-destructive or dangerous to others that victims
might engage in if they are experiencing these emotions. These behaviours can include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Drug or alcohol abuse;Cutting or self-mutilation;
Violence;
Depression;
Anxiety;
Attempted suicide;
Suicide.

Studies have shown that hate crime victims experience more significant impacts than victims of similar
crimes committed for other reasons. For example, hate crime victims spend more time in hospitals recoveringfrom their injuries, lose more time from work, and have more intense and longer lasting feelings of lack ofsafety in their communities.

V. INTRODUCTION TO BIAS INDICATORS
Knowing and recognizing bias indicators is crucial for police because the failure to recognize thoseindicators often leads to the failure of police to pursue hate crime investigations.
Definition of Bias Indicators
Objective facts, circumstances, or patterns connected to a criminal act or acts which, standing alone or in
conjunction with other facts or circumstances, suggest that the offender’s actions were motivated in whole
or in part by any form of bias.

3

Section taken from ODIHR’s Training against Hate Crime for Law Enforcement (TAHCLE) curriculum.

40

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
Bias Indicators• Victim/witness perception• Comments, written statements, or gestures• Drawings, markings, symbols, and graffiti• Differences between perpetrator and victim on ethnic, religious or cultural grounds• Involvement of organized hate groups or their members• Location and timing• Patterns/frequency of previous crimes or incidents• Nature of violence• Lack of other motives
ODIHR’s handbook on hate crimes for Bosnia and Herzegovina provides further details on how to
use bias indicators:
Victim/Witness Perception➞ Does the victim or witnesses perceive that the incident was motivated by bias?
Comments, Written Statements, Gestures or Graffiti➞ Did the suspect make comments, written statements or gestures regarding the victim’s community?
➞ Were drawings, markings, symbols or graffiti left at the scene of the incident?
➞ If the target was property, was it an object or place with religious or cultural significance, such as ahistorical monument or a cemetery?
Racial, Ethnic, Gender, and Cultural Differences➞ Do the suspect and victim differ in terms of their racial, religious or ethnic/national background or sexual
orientation?
• ➞ Is there a history of animosity between the victim’s group and the suspect’s group?
• ➞ Is the victim a member of a group that is overwhelmingly outnumbered by members of anothergroup in the area where the incident occurred?
• ➞ Was the victim engaged in activities promoting his/her group at the time of the incident?
• ➞ Did the incident occur on a date of particular significance (e.g. a religious holiday or national day?)
Organized Hate Groups➞ Were objects or items left at the scene that suggest the crime was the work of a paramilitary or extremist
nationalist organization?
➞ Is there evidence that such a group is active in the neighbourhood (e.g., posters, graffiti or leaflets?)
Previous Bias Crimes/Incidents➞ Have there been similar incidents in the same area? Who were the victims?
• ➞ Has the victim received harassing mail or phone calls or been the victim of verbal abuse based on
his/her affiliation or membership of a targeted group?
• ➞ Was the victim in or near an area or place commonly associated with or frequented by a particulargroup (e.g., a community centre or mosque, church or other place of worship).54
Case study:
A teenager in an automobile drives onto the sidewalk and knocks down and destroys an informational display
about refugees. The display is located outside of a refugee centre. The staff of the refugee centre tells the policethat they believe the youth is racist and hit the sign intentionally.
The teenager says he lost control of his car and that the incident was an accident.
Questions: Is there enough evidence at this point to arrest the teenage boy for a hate crime? The bias
indicators are not sufficient to justify a charge of a hate crime. Further investigation is needed.
What other information would the responding police officer want to know? Additional questions include: Was
4

Understanding Hate Crimes: A Handbook for Bosnia and Herzegovina, pg. 9-10, OSCE ODIHR, 2010.

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
the teenager a refugee? Was there any evidence such as the weather or road conditions that would suggestthat the incident was either accidental or intentional? Has the teenager been involved in prior racist incidents?
Did the teenager say any racist words? Why does the staff of the refugee centre believe this was a hatecrime?

VI. RESPONSE AND INVESTIGATIONThis is an accounting of a real incident. These events took place in June 2003, in one of the largest social
housing estates in the UK, Wales, in the place called Wrexham, with over 5,000 houses and a population ofover 12,000 people. The estate had a very high unemployment level; acute social depravation and many of
the houses required repairs or were boarded up and unoccupied. There was a public house (pub) in thecentre of the housing estate called the Red Dragon.
One year prior to this story taking place six male Kurdish refugees who had fled Iraq had been housed
in a house on the estate. A few months later another six Kurdish refugees were housed in a house nearby
followed by twelve more. The Iraqi Kurdish refugees all lived close to each other near the centre of the
housing estate.
Most of the refugees living on the Caia Park estate were able to work under the terms of their refugee
status, and they obtained local employment in nearby factories. There had not been any issues or a raise inracist tensions during the first 12 months that they lived there.
The refugees were working so they were able to get cars and nice clothes. They were young men, aged
between 18 and 31. Indeed, through their work the refugees were able to purchase items for their homes,
buy cars and to socialize in the Red Dragon. One of the refugees commenced a relationship with a local
woman living on the estate.
Then some local youths and men began shouting abuse to some of the refugees, telling them: “Go backwhere you came from!”, “Leave our women alone!” and other racist comments. The refugees tried to ignore
the verbal abuse and started to change their routes when walking to work to avoid groups of people,
checking streets before walking down them.
Then one of the houses the refugees lived in had graffiti containing racial slurs sprayed on the door andwalls. Initially the refugees cleaned off the graffiti but after a few days later more appeared and a window
was broken. One of the refugees went to the local police station to report the verbal abuse, racist comments,
graffiti and damage. The police took a report of the issues and arranged for the local authority to quickly
remove the graffiti and repair the broken window, which they did.
One afternoon a few days later one of the Kurdish refugees was found unconscious on the pavement nearto the Red Dragon pub. He had a serious head injury and was taken by ambulance to hospital. The friends
living with him were informed and they were convinced that their friend had been attacked by the locals
and the attack had been racially and hate motivated.
Later that day a group of 15 to 20 of the refugees armed themselves and went to the Red Dragon pub
where they believed the people who had assaulted their friend were. They threw stones and missiles
through the windows and shouted, confronting the people inside.
The people inside armed themselves with snooker cues and legs broken from chairs and bar stools andran outside to retaliate with the refugees and a large and violent fight ensued.
The first police officers arrived at the scene quickly and found a large number of local residents gatheredat the scene, where missiles and petrol bombs were being thrown. A number of local men and refugees werearrested, and a large number of police officers were injured, four of them were hospitalized. The remaining
Iraqi Kurds fled the estate and sought refuge in a Church Hall several miles away. Fearing for their safety,
they asked community leaders and North Wales Police to find them new accommodation.
The following night about 200 local people including boys of 12 and 13 years old gathered outside the Red
42

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
Dragon pub on the estate in search of Kurdish refugees. But by that time all refugees had fled the estatefearing for their lives. So the 200-mob began attacking the police officers who were present patrolling thearea. Chief Supt Stephen Curtis confirmed that CCTV footage had identified members of the Wrexham
Frontline, a hooligan gang that follows the town’s football team, as being among the ringleaders.
The violence was so intense that North Wales Police could not cope with this large riot situation and a
Mutual Aid of Public Order Officers from surrounding forces of West Mercia and Merseyside was requested.
A police helicopter flew overhead as the mob rampaged through the sprawling Caia Park council estate.
Over 100 officers from the surrounding police forces attended in full riot equipment. Specialist officers
recorded the rioting and the people involved. It escalated into really serious public disorder with running
battles. Petrol bombs and missiles being thrown with police officers as the targets and cars and buses wereset alight. More officers were injured including one who was set on fire; many required hospital treatment
and a number of arrests were made.
In the end, 100 years in prison sentences were given to 50 people convicted of the more serious offences.
➞What evidence do you believe should be collected? Discuss the following categories: 1. First Response; 2.
Evidence Collection; 3. Interviewing and Interrogating; 4. Victim Support and Follow-up.
Collecting evidence: Photographs were not taken of the graffiti and damage to the outside of the refugee’shome. The police did a positive thing in quickly arranging for the graffiti to be removed and the broken
window to be repaired, but they did not photograph the evidence. Photographs could be very useful in crime
investigation, and any criminal justice process particularly to prove hate crime.
Collecting the evidence, talking to the witnesses and perpetrators: Ask participants what they would do ifthey were called to the crime scene at the different stages of the story development (graffiti, an Iraqi Kurdish
men found unconscious, a fight between the refugees and the local men, escalation of riots).
• D uring the riots the evidential recordings obtained by the police and CCTV from local buildings wereused to identify, arrest and subsequently convict offenders.
• W hat should the police officers ask the witnesses? The most persuasive evidence of bias is the words
used by perpetrators during, before or after the incident. It is critically important to find the witnessesof the incidents and ask them what the local men said and what the Iraqi Kurds said. Officers need tolearn exactly what ethnic slurs, if any, were used by the local men and if there was any response by
the refugees.
 BBC reporter who grew up in the local area stated she witnessed racist behaviour hearing people• A
on the estate demanding police “get the Iraqis out” and that, “Saddam Hussein’s gone now, they should
go back to Iraq”.
•

 olice officers who heard race and hate comments and threats were able to put these in theirPstatements and any placards and banners displayed were seized.

• A sk why it is important to quote these words in the police report. If these words are not in the officers’
report, then prosecutors may never learn of the important convincing evidence of bias.
• W hat should the police ask the local men? The approach to interviewing hate crime perpetrators isvery important.
Hate crimes are message crimes. Perpetrators not only want the victims to hear their message of bias
and hate but they often want to share those messages with the community because they expect that thecommunity shares their views. Some perpetrators believe that police officers will share their biases and evenapprove of their bias-motivated violence.
Officers should ask perpetrators “what did you say” to the victims initially. This is much more effective
than asking a perpetrator if he or she used racial slurs. Asking about racial slurs may send the message that43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
the officers oppose that language and cause the perpetrator to be unwilling to describe what occurred.
However, it is never appropriate for the officer to affirmatively send the message that he or she does share
the perpetrator’s bias. This strategy can result in the officers’ testimony being discredited at trial.
It would be important to check the arrested individual’s social media sites, Facebook and mobile phones,
which can produce evidence of hate crime motivation and bias indicators. This evidence is all vital inassisting to prove hate crime through the criminal justice process.
Interviewing the Victims
Ask how participants would approach the interview of the victims. It is just as important to ask victims todescribe the exact words used by the perpetrators (slurs shouted on the streets), what did graffiti say (before
it was removed), and how the situation escalated. Again, this is the most persuasive evidence of bias
motivation.
It is very helpful to the victims to hear that you are sorry about what happened to them, and that you (as apolice officer) are taking the case seriously. This serves two important purposes. First, many hate crime
victims assume that police and the broader community will not care that they were victimized because ofbias. Victims, as a result, feel isolated and alone. Telling the victims that you are sorry about what happened
to them, without characterizing it as a hate crime (because it is too early in the investigation to reach that
conclusion), dramatically reduces their sense of isolation. Second, this approach builds trust with the victim
and increases the likelihood that the victim will be open and candid with you.
Ask participants whether they should refer victims to other agencies or organizations. Police should refervictims to organizations or offices that provide support services and also to human rights organizations that
address hate crimes.
If the officers will continue to be active in the case through the trial, they can tell the victims that they will
try to update them on the progress of the case. This also is reassuring to the victims.
Interviewing Neighbours and Acquaintances of the Perpetrators and Victims
If no witnesses to the crime exist and if the perpetrators deny that crime was bias-motivated police shouldinterview neighbours or acquaintances of the perpetrators and the victims. This accomplishes two things.
First, because hate crime perpetrators often boast about their crime, officers may obtain information that
establishes the bias motivation. Second, since many hate crime perpetrators and victims live in thecommunities where the crimes were committed, speaking with neighbours sends a message that the police
are taking the hate crime seriously. These actions by police may deter the perpetrators or others fromcommitting another hate crime. At the same time, people who are upset and scared by the hate crime will
feel reassured that the police are committed to protecting them.
Outreach
It is helpful to reach out to the victims’ group or community. Ask participants what outreach they could
engage in with the refugee’s community in the case discussed earlier. Police could have reassured that
community that police were taking the crime seriously. Police also could have reached out to a nongovernmental organization that provides services to refugees.
Avoid Minimizing the Seriousness of the Crime
Secondary victimization occurs when police or other government officials minimize the seriousness of thecrime, as we could see from the escalation of the story. Remind the participants about the beginning of thehate crime case when racist graffiti was spray-painted on the victims’ building door. What might be theimpact on the victims if the responding officer told them that he did not have time to investigate a case withsuch minimal property damage? You can comment that the emotional impact of the victims believing thatthe police do not care about the crime may dramatically exceed the monetary damage of repainting theirdoor and the walls. The victims may become more isolated, believing that police and the community do notcare about what happened to them. Victims may be very reluctant to report future hate crimes to police.

44

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

VII. CASE STUDIES: IDENTIFYING HATE CRIMES AND WORKING WITH
VICTIMS
Participants will be given a case study and deal with a hate crime case. The purpose is to identify bias
motives and the main differences between hate crimes and other related concepts such as hate speech/
incitement to hatred, discrimination, hate-motivated incidents and extremism.
••••

Each group should analyse the scenario and respond:
Was the case a hate crime? If so, what were the bias indicators?
How did the police respond to the incident? What could have they done differently?
How was the case investigated? What could have they done differently?

CASE STUDY #1
A mosque was vandalized last night. Several windows were broken and the front door was kicked in.
Inside the mosque someone had spray painted on a wall “ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS. GET OUT
OF OUR COUNTRY NOW”.
The bloody carcass of a pig was lying in the middle of the mosque. Muslims represent only a small portionof the population in this region. There were no witnesses to the property damage.
You arrive at 8 a.m. the next morning shortly after men arrive for morning prayer. You are in charge ofthe investigation.
Question 1: What actions should you take?
Question 2: How will you respond to the situation below?
Two hours later a reporter from the largest newspaper in your country arrives and asks you if you areinvestigating this as a hate crime.

CASE STUDY #2
Three days ago, the first gay bar in your city opened for business. Last evening two women wereassaulted as they left the bar together holding each other’s hands. One of the victims is in the hospital in acoma from a kick to her head. She is in danger of dying. You are assigned to lead the investigation of thiscase early on the morning after the attack.
Question 1: What actions should you take?
You interview the victim who is not in the hospital and she gives you a detailed physical description of theattacker who kicked the other victim in the head. However, she tells you that she will not testify in court orsign a written statement.
Question 2: Why might she refuse to cooperate?
Question 3: What can you do to increase the chance that she will cooperate?

VIII. BARRIERS TO INVESTIGATING HATE CRIMES
Officers may face multiple barriers that prevent them from investigating hate crimes. Many different
barriers exist including failure of victims to report hate crimes and failure of police officers to report hatecrimes. It is important for police to identify these barriers so that they can develop and implement strategies
to overcome them. These barriers include:

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
Lack of Reporting by Victims• Victims may be in denial that the attack was bias motivated• Victims may be scared of reporting any crimes to the police• Victims may not trust police to investigate hate crimes• Victims may be fearful of retaliation from the perpetrators if they report to police• Victims may blame themselves for the attack• Victims may not be aware of the procedure of reporting to the police
Lack of Response by Law Enforcement• Lack of reporting by police officers• Lack of resources of police• Lack of support by police commanders or other high-ranking government officials• Lack of interest by prosecutors in handling hate crime cases• Biases held by some portion of the law enforcement establishment
Lack of Response by Political Leaders• Lack of political will to recognize hate crimes as a serious issue• Lack of awareness about hate crimes by political leaders
6

IX. PROSECUTING HATE CRIMES5Introducing specific attributes of hate crimes and hate crimes prosecutions
 ate crimes continue and escalate if not stopped: Hate crimes are usually part of a pattern of escalatingH
conduct beginning with non-criminal acts of bias that, if not confronted, end with hate crimes.
 ate crimes can threaten community stability: Hate crimes often are directed at particular ethnic, nationalHor religious groups. When these crimes grow in number, communities can split apart and retaliatory
violence may result.
Individual hate crimes can have a deeply destructive impact on individual victims: Hate crimes undermine
the sense of security and safety for victims and their family and friends.
 ate crimes are one of the few crimes in which the perpetrator’s motivation is a critical part of theHoffence: In an ordinary assault, the police and prosecutors do not need to establish in court the attacker’s
motivation. With hate crimes, however, the perpetrator’s bias motivation is a critical part of theinvestigation. Determining whether evidence establishes that the perpetrator acted because of bias is themost significant difference between investigating
What makes hate crime prosecutions different from other crimes?
Proof of motive
Increased impact: Message crimes
Individual victims
Targeted community
Societal stability and security
What is a hate crime prosecution?
Presenting evidence of the defendant’s bias motive;
Providing the victims the opportunity to have their experiences with bias recognized by the criminal
court;
Seeking an appropriate sentence for the increased impact of the crime.
Why are hate crime prosecutions important?
Contribute to the deterrent effect that criminal punishment has on the offender and potential
offenders;5

Information for the prosecution section comes from ODIHR’s Prosecutors and Hate Crimes (PAHCT) training curriculum.

46

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
Send a message to victims, communities and societies that violent manifestations of intolerance will
be actively pursued by law enforcement;
Help prevent retaliatory crimes; andMeet the State’s international obligations and commitments to effectively investigate and prosecute hatecrimes.

X. BARRIERS TO PROSECUTING HATE CRIMES AND SOLUTIONS TO
OVERCOME THEM
Lack of Reporting by Victims• Victims may be in denial that the attack was bias motivated• Victims may be scared of reporting any crimes to the police• Victims may not trust police and prosecutors to investigate hate crimes• Victims may be fearful of retaliation from the perpetrators if they report the crime• Victims may blame themselves for the attack
Lack of Response by Law Enforcement• Lack of reporting by police officers• Lack of resources of police• Lack of support by police commanders or other high-ranking government officials• Biases held by some portion of the law enforcement establishment
Lack of Response by Prosecutors• Lack of information received from law enforcement about bias
• Lack of resources by prosecutors• Lack of willingness by prosecutors to seek additional evidence of bias motivation when alreadysufficient evidence for conviction
Lack of Response by Judges• Lack of clear legislation can lead wary judges not to consider bias motivation at sentencing• Lack of an appreciation of the importance of addressing hate crimes through the criminal justicesystem• Judges may require very high standard of evidence (e.g., will only consider defendant’s direct
admissions) for recognizing bias motivated crime
Lack of Response by Political Leaders• Lack of political will to recognize hate crimes as a serious issue• Leadership lacks understanding that downplaying any social tensions in society leads to more
insecurity and greater tensions than by acknowledging them and addressing them

XI. CASE STUDIES 2: MOTIVE EVIDENCE (HANDOUTS 10 & 11)
Work in small groups to practice using evidence to prove bias motivation for convictions and sentencing
How is motive relevant to the prosecution’s case? How often do they highlight aspects of motive? Whatis the difference in proving bias motive? What are common types and sources of bias evidence? It may be
useful and very effective to highlight the types and sources of evidence through the use of case examples.
Case study:<A> is a Muslim woman living in Bratislava. She was leaving a shop at 8 PM on 11 January when a man,
<Z>, assaulted her with a knife which left her with superficial wounds. The owner of the shop saw the scene
but by the time he was outside, the assailant had run away. He helped the victim to sit down and called thepolice as well as an ambulance.
<A> explained to the police that she was simply leaving the shop when the man assaulted her and thatthe assailant didn't say a word during the attack. She briefly described the assailant as being white and bald
and wearing a green jacket.
47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
The owner confirmed what he could see from the counter and described what happened as an unprovokedattack. He confirmed that he didn't hear anything being shouted by the perpetrator and that the perpetrator
was bold and wearing a green jacket.
Later that same evening a person corresponding to the description and carrying a knife in his jacket has
been arrested by the police. The person admitted that while entering a shop he had a small dispute with awoman wearing a headscarf earlier in the evening.
Investigators also conducted interviews in the neighbourhood of the shop showing the picture of theassailant and asking neighbours if they knew anything about <Z>. A bartender told the police that thisperson came regularly to his bar with other friends and that a couple of days ago he heard them talking
about slitting the throat of refugees. He thought they were just joking and showing off.
<Z> was brought to the police station and arrested on suspicion of assault committed with a knife. Police
asked questions about what happened and explained that the victim and the owner testified that the attack
was unprovoked and that they suspected that he had committed the assault because of <A>'s religion. <Z>
immediately denied these facts and explained that he had nothing against Muslim people, that he doesn't hate
Muslim people.
Police asked <Z> why he was carrying a knife in his jacket. <Z> explained that he previously had
problems with refugees and that he felt more protected with a knife in his jacket. He also explained that hereads news online and that with all the migrants around, it's better to carry a knife to be safe. At the end of
the interview, he also mentioned that if another potential terrorist like her stands again on his way, he mightuse his knife again.
Questions
1. What are the bias indicators here?
2. Which offences would you indict <Z> with? What evidence of bias motive would you use? What further
evidence might you seek?
3. Respond to <Z>'s argument that this was not a hate crime.
4. How would you ensure that the Court takes the bias motivation into consideration at sentencing?
5. Your boss asked you to prepare a public statement about the case. What should it say?

48

THAILAND’S EFFORT TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN:ONE FORM OF CRIME MOTIVATED BY GENDER DISCRIMINATION
Santanee Ditsayabut*

Although there are many forms of crime motivated by gender discrimination, I chose to address the issueof violence against women as one form of gender-related crime which has its own complexities. It is considereda real challenge for the criminal justice system in Thailand to deal with this type of crime effectively.
Consider the three cases below.
The first case concerns a drunk man, the ex-husband, who came to ring the doorbell at the front gate,yelling for his ex-wife to open the door, and promptly said, “Don’t try to hide from me, you can’t escapeanyway”. However, the woman stayed silent with her daughter behind the closed door. After waiting for awhile, she peeked out from the window and saw a fire burning her clothes that were hanging on theclothesline near the front gate. She, together with her daughter, hastily extinguished the fire. The results of
the investigation revealed that the ex-husband had reached out his hand into the house to ignite a cigarette
lighter and set fire to those clothes. The prosecutor indicted the man for the offence of criminal mischief.
Even though, he was convicted, the Court ordered a suspension of his punishment because the damage value
for the clothes was trivial.
The second case is related to a defendant who was a university professor. On the night of the incident,
the defendant brutally attacked his wife and hit her with a blunt object until she died. The Supreme Court,
after having examined the case based on the evidence, concluded that the defendant was a doctorate degree
professor, who continuously and carefully preserved his honour and reputation. His wife had a duty to takecare of their son by taking him to and from school. On the day of the incident, she was heavily intoxicated,and did not go to pick up her son but left him with her servant alone at the school. She had also failed to pickup the defendant, which was the cause of their quarrel. She confessed to the defendant that she had met withher ex-boyfriend. Even though the defendant was highly educated, he is just a layman. In his anger, hegrabbed the umbrella from his golf bag to hit his wife, although he could have chosen other lethal weapons.
His weapon choice suggested that he had no intention to kill his wife. When he saw her lying unresponsive,
he thought at first that it was because she was drunk and quickly sent her to the hospital while calling his
wife’s relatives to come take care of her. Since the defendant was well-educated and had confessed to his
crimes, the court found him guilty but agreed to a reduced sentence, in order to allow the defendant to turnover a new leaf and to take care of his son.
In the third case, Soi lived with Ray since she was 17 and he was 23. They have 1 child and initially lived
happily together. However, Ray gradually started to drink more and more, spending all his money on alcoholand cigarettes rather than on paying the bills. Instead, it fell on Soi to support the family by selling meat at
the market. She also had to take care of the household chores without any help from Ray who was constantly
drunk. He always found issues to scream at Soi for and was physically abusive. He would also act intrusive
whenever Soi talked to other people. When Soi managed to save up enough money to build a new home, Ray
would intentionally dirty up the house by walking around with muddy shoes or using the curtains to wipe
his nose and mouth. However, the one thing that weighed her down the most was having to sleep on thesame bed as Ray each night since Ray always stank of alcohol. Whenever Soi refused to sleep with him, Ray
would flare-up and start screaming at Soi that she was disgusted by him, kicking her around, or pulling her
hair. One time, Ray woke up in the middle of the night and found that Soi was not next to him. In a fit ofanger, he pulled the quilt down from the bed and started stabbing at it with the knife he kept under the bed.
Ray burnt the ruined quilt the next morning in the Longan field.1
This cycle kept on being repeated for over 23 years. There were many times when Soi wanted to run
away but Ray threatened that he would find her and kill her if she ever did. In the end, Soi managed to* Provincial Public Prosecutor, Office of the Attorney General of Thailand.
1
Napaporn Hawanon, Testimonies of Battered Women, p. 28-45.

49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
escape but Ray followed her and pled with her to return to him, promising in front of his entire family that
he would turn over a new leaf. Ray managed to quit drinking and they were able to live peacefully together
for two months until one day they got into a minor argument. Ray kept Soi in a headlock and held a 3-inch
knife to her stomach while saying that he was going to kill her today and himself afterwards. Soi calmed Ray
down by talking about their child until Ray put away the knife. Soi knew then that either Ray would haveto die, or she would die. That evening, Soi went out to buy gloves and a tarp. She secretly prepared the tarp
under the bedsheets before going to bed. Once she was sure that Ray had fallen asleep, Soi stabbed him withthe very knife that Ray had threatened her with earlier in the day. Soi was charged with premeditatedmurder and received a death sentence for her crimes. However, since Soi confessed to the crime, the court
reduced her sentence to 25 years in prison.
What points do you see from these three different cases?

I. CRIMES MOTIVATED BY GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THAILAND,
FOCUSING ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
The study released by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) on the International Day
for the Elimination of Violence against Women last year on 25 November 2018 revealed that a total of 87,000
women were killed worldwide in 2017 and 58 percent of those female victims were killed at the hands of
intimate partners or family members.2 The regions with the largest number of female victims killed byintimate partners and family members were Asia (20,000 women), followed by Africa (19,000 women).3
In principle, common elements of all crimes consist of (1) a voluntary act (“actus reus”); (2) a culpable
intent (“mens rea”); (3) concurrence between the mens rea and the actus reus; and (4) causation of harm. To
determine whether the defendant is guilty or not, the criminal justice personnel would concentrate only on
the moment the crimes occurred. Therefore, most official records collected by the criminal justice organizationneglect to include data on history or relationship between victim and offender as well as the motivation tocommit a crime if such factors do not relate to an aggravated offence or a mitigated sentence. Thus, it isarguable whether the main drivers of the crimes are related to gender.
However, in the case of female victims of violence, it is well accepted that gender discrimination lies at
the root of the crimes. According to the statement of the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, “...
violence against women and girls is the manifestation of a profound lack of respect – a failure by men torecognize the inherent equality and dignity of women ... Violence against women is tied to broader issuesof power and control in our societies. We live in a male-dominated society. Women are made vulnerable
to violence through the multiple ways in which we keep them unequal ...”4 The UNODC Executive Director
Yury Fedotov also expressed his concern that, “While the vast majority of homicide victims are men, womencontinue to pay the highest price as a result of gender inequality, discrimination and negative stereotypes.”5
Violence against women is defined in the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, andreiterated in various international instruments including the Updated Model Strategies and Practical
Measures on the Elimination of Violence against Women in the field of Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice, to mean any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or
psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivationof liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.6

2

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Global Study on Homicide 2018 (Vienna, 2018) <https://www.unodc.
org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html> accessed 8 Jan. 2019.
3
Ibid.
4
United Nations, Antonio Guterres, Remarks on International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (19 November2018) <https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2018-11-19/international-day-elimination-violence-against-womenremarks> accessed 8 Jan. 2019.
5
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), UNODC press release (25 November 2018) <https://www.unodc.org/
unodc/en/press/releases/2018/November/home--the-most-dangerous-place-for-women--with-majority-of-female-homicide-victimsworldwide-killed-by-partners-or-family--unodc-study-says.html> accessed 8 Jan. 2019.
6
General Assembly resolution 65/228, annex, para. 2.

50

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
In Thailand, the male dominant attitude is still pervasive in society. There is a commonly known phrasethat “A man is the front legs of an elephant” which implies that male always leads the way. This manifests
the problem of structural inequalities of power. It has been deeply cultivated in Thai culture that a man is
the leader of the family whereas a woman shall behave as a good wife by taking care of family and the housechores. All these beliefs make a man feel that he holds power over a woman and can act in any way towards
to his female partner in exerting his dominance.
Considering the information revealed by a UNICEF-supported study on Comprehensive Sexuality
Education in 2017 which found that 41 percent of male vocational school students believed that a husband isentitled to beat up his wife if he found that she is unfaithful to him,7 male superiority is a problematic
attitude that is deeply rooted in the society.
According to the study on Thai women’s experiences of and responses to domestic violence published in
the International Journal of Women’s Health in 2018, about 16% of the 1,444 married or cohabiting women
faced various forms of violence from their male partner, often repeatedly in most cases.8 Previously, there
was also a survey on domestic violence and violence against women that was carried out from January 27
to February 2, 2017 by the Women and Men Progressive Movement Foundation (WMP). There were 1,608
female respondents aged between 17 and 40 from various levels of education and occupations in Bangkok
and its outskirts. The survey revealed that in terms of attitude towards love, 76.8% of respondents said
women must have a monogamous relationship, 47.9% said men are family leaders, 43.3% said wives or
girlfriends must obey and pay attention to their partners.9

II. LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCERNING CRIMES MOTIVATED BY
GENDER DISCRIMINATION
The male dominant attitude and the view that women become the property of their husbands can be seen
generally even in Thai legislation. The Penal Code of Thailand was promulgated in 1956 (B.E. 2499). At thattime, the offence of rape was provided in section 276 of the Penal Code, stating that “Whoever has sexualintercourse with a woman, who is not his wife, against her will, by threatening by any means whatever, by
doing any act of violence, by taking advantage of the woman being in the condition of inability to resist, orby causing the woman to mistake him for the other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for four totwenty years and a fine of eight thousand to forty thousand Baht”. Thus, the Thai law at that time allowed
a husband to rape his wife with impunity. It sent a message that if a woman got married, she instantly loses
her right to refuse to have sexual intercourse with her husband.
This section in the Penal Code was amended by the Penal Code Amendment Act (No.19) B.E. 2550 (2007)
with the reason given in the promulgation of the Act that section 276 of the Penal Code B.E. 2499 was drafted
based on sexual discrimination and needed to be amended in order to be in line with the principles of equality
between men and women that do not discriminate against sexual orientation. The Act removed the previous
distinction under section 276 of the Penal Code which had limited rape to sexual intercourse between a man
and a woman who is not his wife and expanded the definition of rape to cover all sexes and all types of sexual
penetration. Therefore, at present, marital rape is criminalized in Thailand and the offender could besentenced to a term of imprisonment for four to twenty years and a fine of eighty thousand baht to four
hundred thousand baht. However, if the spouses still intended to live with each other as a married couple
after the crime, the Court may reduce the sentence to any extent below that prescribed by law or may
impose any additional condition to control the behaviour of the offender.
Thailand does not have a specific offence for gender-related murder while some countries have termed
an act of killing women because they are women as “femicide” or “feminicide”. Thailand has also not adopted
7

Bangkok Post, Sex education falling short, Unicef finds (1 June 2017) <https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1260046/
sex-education-falling-short-unicef-finds> accessed 8 Jan. 2019.
8
Dovepress, Thai Women’s experiences of and responses to domestic violence (2018)<https://www.dovepress.com/thai-womens-experiences-of-and-responses-to-domestic-violence-peer-reviewed-article-IJWH> accessed
8 Jan. 2019.
9
Bangkok Post, Violence against women in Thailand, a survey (11 Feb. 2017) <https://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/
advanced/1198332/violence-against-women-in-thailand-a-survey> accessed 8 Jan 2019.

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
an approach of establishing gender-related motivation as an aggravating factor for criminal offence. The
crime motivated by gender-discrimination in Thailand is treated as a normal crime under the law. However,with the view that domestic violence contains special factors which are different from ordinary cases ofphysical assault, the enforcement of a criminal offence under the Criminal Code alone is inappropriate.
Therefore, the Domestic Violence Victim Protection Act of B.E. 2550 (2007) was promulgated to protect
victims of domestic violence and to punish the perpetrators while providing various measures for the
rehabilitation of the perpetrators. The Act established a domestic violence offence punishable by a term of
imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding six thousand baht, or both. The Court mayorder an offender to pay financial assistance to the victim and direct the offender to refrain from the actsthat gave rise to domestic violence. Another important point is that domestic violence under this law is acompoundable offence where the offender and victim can negotiate and settle the case without going to trial.
However, where there is settlement, the inquiry officer or the Court, whichever the case maybe, shallarrange to have an initial settlement record made prior to such settlement in order to impose conditions forcompliance. Later, if the offender violates or does not comply with such settlement record, the inquiry officer
or the Court is able to resume the case again.
Table 1 Statistics on violence cases, classified by charge and the relationship between the perpetrator andthe victim for the fiscal year 2018 (1 Oct 2017- 30 Sept 2018)

Type of Charge
1. Violence against life,
body, and mind

Relationship between perpetrator and victim
CommonExlaw
Adopted Family
Spouse spouse partner Children
child
member Dependent
56

12

28

23

4

33

2

2. Sexual Violence

-

-

-

1

-

1

2

3. Violence against freedom

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

4. Violence against health
5. Social Violence(negligence, abandonment,
etc.)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

56

12

29

24

4

34

4

Remarks: In some cases, there is more than one perpetrator or victim.
Source: Office of the Attorney General of Thailand

Table 2 Statistics on violence cases, classified by charge. Cases classified by age and perpetrator’s gender,
age and victim’s gender for the fiscal year 2018 (1 Oct 2017- 30 Sept 2018)
AmountType of Charge

perpetrator’s age
between 0 - 18 years
oldperpetrator’s age
above 18 years old

victim’s age between victim’s age above 18
0 - 18 years oldyears oldMale

FemaleMale

FemaleMale

FemaleMale

Female1. Violence against life, body, and
mind

1

-

138

13

9

10

18

122

2. Sexual Violence

1

-

1

-

2

-

-

3. Violence against freedom

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4. Violence against health

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5. Social Violenceabandonment, etc.)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

139

13

12

18

122

Total

(negligence,

Remarks: In some cases, there is more than one perpetrator or victim.
Source: Office of the Attorney General of Thailand

52

9

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
From the above statistics, we can see that those who are/were intimate partners, whether spouses, exspouses, or common law partners, make up the majority of people who commit violence against each other.
Moreover, when Table 1 is compared to Table 2, we can see that in the majority of cases, men often
perpetrate violence against women (91.56% of cases were committed by men).

III. CHALLENGES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO WOMENEXPERIENCING CRIMES MOTIVATED BY GENDER DISCRIMINATION
A. Women as Victims of Crime
Despite various surveys demonstrating that a high percentage of women around the world have sufferedfrom violence, cases of violence against women that survive to trial were fewer in number. It is a fact inevery country that violence against women is underreported to authorities. Many factors are accountable forthis phenomenon. For female victims of violence, speaking up and reporting the incident to an official isalways the most difficult first step to take. For many reasons, some women may also face the dilemma ofwhether they should report a crime of violence committed by their intimate partners to the police. The
worst factor is that these female victims do not see any benefit in reporting the crime because they knowthat they will not receive the help they really need.
In cases of domestic violence, many police officers still see it as a private issue or an internal family affair
and therefore are reluctant to intervene at the early stages or even process the complaint as is normallydone when a case of another nature is reported. There are also repeat cases wherein the women werebattered by their intimate partners on a regular basis. Whenever they went to report the criminal incident
to the police, the police would only conduct a mediation between the offender and the victim and drop thecomplaint. While the couple may agree to live together again, there would be no happily ever after in mostcases.
Moreover, in the case where a woman’s complaint survives to become an investigated case file that goesto trial in court, the insensitive process of the criminal justice system seems to unintentionally revictimize
the female victim. The process requires the victims to tell their stories repetitively to different officers ineach and every stage of the criminal procedure, forcing the victims to recall their tragic memories and sufferfrom such feelings over and over again. Some questions about the victims’ behaviour or provocation of crime
can make the victims feel even worse and begin considering that it might be their fault that the crime
happened, not the perpetrator’s.
Considering the fact that violence against women is a silent crime, occurring between two intimate
partners, it is difficult to find another witness besides the victim herself at the crime scene. If the victims do
not want to testify in court because they do not want to confront the defendant, or if the victims died as aresult of the crimes, the Courts would rule that there were not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendants have committed the crimes. Even if the Courts found the defendants guilty of thecrimes, the defendants would be able to make an uncontested claim of provocation or self-defence to reduce
their sentence, as demonstrated in the second case example earlier. Impunity for perpetrators usually
happens in the case of domestic violence.
B. Women as Criminal Offenders Caused by Being Abused in the Past
There is also the aspect that women who were the victims of domestic violence become the defendants
on trial for the murder of their abusive partners. When women who have been brutally abused for a longtime rise up to fight back, believing that to be the only way they could protect themselves against the neverending abuse, most of them are often subject to legal penalties without being able to receive a reduced
sentence by the law. The legal principle of self-defence often cannot be applied in such cases where thedanger of the situation may not be generally considered as imminent. Moreover, due to having less physicalstrength, women tend to use a weapon in committing their crimes. This is considered an aggravating factor
that will result in harsher punishment.
In this regard, the Updated Model Strategies and Practical Measures on the Elimination of Violenceagainst Women in the field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice urges the Member States to ensurethat claims of self-defence by women who have been victims of violence, particularly in cases of batteredwoman syndrome, are taken into account in investigations, prosecutions and sentences against them.
53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
Moreover, psychologists confirmed that the mental state of women who were repeatedly traumatized bytheir loved ones is different from women who have never undergone such experiences. Nevertheless, inpractice, the way in which criminal justice officers apply the concept of ‘self-defence’ in the case of previously
abused female offenders does not differ from general standards in other cases.
This is similar to the scenario in case number three where Soi, who had patiently endured everything foryears, decided to do something to protect her life. Nobody in the criminal justice system had paid attention
or even asked about her motivation for killing Ray. The question remains as to whether or not what Soi had
experienced for almost 23 years before the day that she murdered Ray matters in the eye of the criminal
justice system. Her case did not even qualify for a claim of self-defence, necessity or even provocation to
help mitigate the sentence.

IV. THAILAND’ S INTEGRATED EFFORTS TO OVERCOME THE CHALLENGES
A. Legislation
Even though the substantive law of Thailand is quite comprehensive to criminalize all acts of violenceagainst women, gender-insensitive judicial process is another challenge for the effective prosecution andpunishment of perpetrators of violence against women. There is still room for improvement in the procedural
law of Thailand regarding the procedures for investigating the case, collecting the evidence, as well as
admitting evidence in court. Currently, the Office of the Attorney General is considering proposing anamendment to the Criminal Procedure Code of Thailand so that in cases of sexuality-related offences, theinquiry officer shall arrange an appropriate examination place for the female victim/witness and shall prepare
an image and voice recorder for recording such examinations and they shall be used as admissible evidence
in court. This proposed amendment is in line with the Updated Model Strategies and Practical Measures on
the Elimination of Violence against Women in the field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Section
15(c), according to which Member States are urged to update their criminal procedures to ensure thatwomen subjected to violence are enabled to testify in criminal proceedings through adequate measures thatfacilitate such testimony by protecting privacy, identity and dignity of the women; ensure safety during legal
proceeding; and avoid “secondary victimization.”10
B. Raising Awareness and Changing People’s Mindset, Especially Law Enforcement
When cases of domestic abuse, sexual assault, and rape against women are reported, many times we willhear victim-blaming criticism such as she dressed or expressed herself inappropriately, the place she went
was isolated, the job she had was misleading, etc., which has the tendency to place the blame for the crimeon the victim rather than the perpetrator. Elimination of violence against women requires true understandingof the issues and the right mindset of people in the criminal justice system. Referring to the first caserecounted from my experiences with prosecution work, the reason given by the trial court to reduce thesentence and to suspend the punishment imposed on a defendant shows that the Court did not understandthe psychological impact inflicted on the woman caused by the defendant who was her ex-husband. This
psychological damage is huge and cannot be compensated quickly. That is why the Court considered only
the monetary value of the damage. Cases like this are not unusual. Therefore, no matter how good the law
is, if law enforcement does not understand the deeply rooted issue of power inequality between men andwomen, and have the correct attitudes towards gender discrimination, it is impossible to effectively enforce
the law.
Thailand has been actively campaigning to raise awareness to end violence against women since 2008
when Her Royal Highness Princess Bajrakitiyabha Mahidol graciously accepted the position of Goodwill
Ambassador for the Say No to Violence against Women initiative in Thailand. In 2010, under the leadershipof Her Royal Highness Princess Bajrakitiyabha Mahidol, 622,189 actions taken by Thai individuals to end
violence against women were recorded as part of the UN Secretary General’s Campaign, UNITE to End
Violence against Women. Since 2012, the Office of the Attorney General has joined hands with the Police
Cadet Academy in organizing training workshops for young police cadets on the nature, extent, andseriousness of violence against women crimes and how the police have played a crucial role to end thisproblem. With the belief that such training would help shape the mindset of those who will become police
officers in the near future, such training has been organized annually. The Office of the Attorney General also
10

General Assembly resolution 65/228, annex, para. 15 (c)54171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
conducts regular trainings and workshops for prosecutors at various levels on the issue of violence against
women.
C. Providing a Mechanism for Access to Justice
It is undeniable that insufficient access to justice is the main obstacle to the effective protection of thevictim and punishment of the offender. In order to begin the legal process, the first stage that female victimsof violence usually have to undergo is to report their cases to the police. Unfortunately, this simple process
appears to be very difficult for the victims who have been frightened for a long time and who question
whether the justice system can help them live better lives without violence or whether they can even reachthe justice system at all. The information regarding what they will be facing in entering to the world of thecriminal justice system, what rights they have under the law, and what will happen with their children etc.,
are necessary for female victims to make an informed decision throughout the process.
We currently live in a world of technological advances. We talk about many disruptive technologies thatchange the way we live our daily lives. It might be time to think of innovating the justice system in order tocontribute to a safe environment for female victims to feel more comfortable in coming forwards. In Thailand,
there is an effort to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to compliment the conventional way to access justice. The
development of the AI chat bot project, called “Police Noi”, which means little police is one interesting
example. Police Noi is a computer programme that was designed to give friendly answers to questions
relating to violence against women in all aspects, ranging from medical treatment to preliminary legal
counselling and includes providing the contacts of various related agencies from which help can be sought.
Without having to come face to face with an unknown person, the victims of violence can talk and ask anyquestions including the legal process and its consequences before making a decision whether to report thecase to the police. Moreover, the possibility that the AI chat bot can communicate with people through LINE
and Facebook allows people to interact with Police Noi in a way that is similar to communicating with a real
person. Therefore, Police Noi also serves as a lively platform that female victims can talk and tell stories towithout fear of getting judgmental responses from the neutral AI. This is one instance where technology canovercome the inequalities or forms of discrimination that women face in accessing the justice system. This
is in line with the target of Sustainable Development Goal 16, which aims to provide equal access to justicefor all.
Violence against women is not an emerging crime but it is a crime that occurs in conjunction with the
deeply rooted unequal power relations between men and women. Discriminatory attitudes of people insociety as well as law enforcement officers cannot be changed over a short period of time. However, if westart doing whatever we can to end this gender-bias-motivated violence today, future women all over theworld can surely enjoy their lives without violence.

55

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108

REPAIRING THE HARMS OF HATE CRIME: TOWARDS A RESTORATIVEJUSTICE APPROACH?
Mark Austin Walters*

I. INTRODUCTION
The commission of offences which are either motivated by bias towards the victim’s identity, or where
hostility is demonstrated towards the victim’s identity during the commission of the offence, are called hatecrimes. Responding to the causes and consequences of hate crime is more important than ever, as we haveentered into what academics, media commentators and politicians have referred to as a global “era of hate”.1
The growth in activities and electoral success of far-right groups has been observed across the globe, while
the numbers of reported hate crime incidents continues to skyrocket.2 These types of crime are unique inthat they are aimed at attacking a victim due to a group characteristic (or characteristics) that they hold.
Hence, whether an incident involves a premeditated violent physical assault by a gang of extreme racists, orthe hurling of a homophobic insult by a neighbour in the heat of the moment, in each case the victim, andothers who display similar characteristics, will know that they have been targeted because of who they are.
The fact that group identity is central to both the nature and dynamics of hate crime creates an exceptional
set of challenges for victims that are likely to impact significantly upon both their emotional and physicalwell-being.3 The harms of hate are also likely to ripple out, affecting entire communities of people who canexperience similar traumas to those of direct victims. Comprehending how hate crimes have unique direct
and indirect impacts is central to determining how these offences can be effectively addressed by criminal
justice systems.4
A. Addressing the Harms of Hate
1. The Conventional Approach
Governments across North America, Europe and Australasia have tended to focus their attentions on
combating hate-based criminality by enacting new laws that enhance the penalties of hate crime offenders.5
They have done so using a number of different methods of legislation. Broadly speaking, hate crime laws fall
into one of two categories, either an animus model (whereby an offence is considered a hate crime where it
is motivated by hate or prejudice, or where hate or prejudice is demonstrated during the commission of an
offence), or a group selection model, whereby an offence becomes a hate crime where the offender selects hisor her victim by reason of their identity characteristics.6
There are a number of justifications that have been advanced for enacting either type of hate crime
legislation7. These can be summarized as follows:••Penalty enhancers recognize the elevated levels of harm that are typically caused by hate crimes(retributive theory)
New laws send a strong message of social condemnation (censure), that hate-based crimes will not be* Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, School of Law, Politics and Sociology, University of Sussex, UK, and co-Director of
the International Network for Hate Studies.
1
May Bulman, “Thousands across Europe march in protest against racial and religious discrimination”, The Independent, March 18, 2018;
Jennifer Schweppe and Mark A. Walters, eds., The Globalization of Hate: Internationalizing Hate Crime? (Oxford, OUP, 2016).
2
See e.g. Home Office, Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18 Statistical Bulletin 20/18 (London: Home Office, 2018). The
total number of hate crimes rose 17% to 94,098 in England and Wales between 2017-18.
3
Linda Garnets, Gregory. M. Herek and Barrie Levey, “Violence and victimization of lesbians and gay men: Mental healthconsequences”, in Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men, G. Herek and K. Berrill, eds. (Newbury
Park, Sage, 1992).
4
NB parts of this paper are adapted from Mark. A. Walters, Hate Crime and Restorative Justice: Repairing Harms, Exploring
Causes (Oxford, OUP, 2014).
5
Frederick Lawrence, Punishing Hate: Bias Crimes under American Law (London, Harvard University Press, 1999).
6
See examples in ibid.
7
For a detailed analysis see, ibid.

56

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS•••

tolerated in society (deterrence and retributive theories)
The law helps to support positive social norms that reject public expressions of prejudice (educative
deterrence)
New laws simultaneously send a message of support to targeted identity groups that they will beprotected from victimization (fair protection paradigm)
Legislation ensures more effective resource deployment to tackle hate-based offences, as the police andprosecution services must enforce specific laws (practical reasons)

By legislating for hate-based offences, the government sends out a strong message to society that suchcrimes will not be tolerated and that commonly targeted groups will be protected from such violence.
However, the criminalization of hate-motivated offences also has a particularly important role for the effective
implementation of justice interventions for hate crime. This is because hate crime legislation helps to ensurethat criminal justice agencies officially record and monitor these types of offences, and in turn, criminal
justice agencies must attend specifically to this “type” of offending. Indeed, within the UK, since hate crimelaws were first enacted in 1998, there is now a large body of policy and guidance documentation aimed attackling hate crime.8
a. The “Justice Gap”
Despite the persuasive arguments that can be proffered in favour of legislating against hate, there are
two fundamental criticisms to relying solely on this approach to addressing hate crime:
1. The enhancement of punishment and additional criminalization of hate-motivated perpetrators does
little to repair the harms caused by incidents of hate;
2. Enhancing the penalties of offenders is unlikely to effectively challenge the underlying causes ofprejudice, at least at an individual level.
Firstly, penalty enhancers do little to challenge the enhanced vulnerability of hate crime victims (exploredin more detail below) or minority communities more broadly – at least in the short term. In fact, some haveeven argued that punishment enhancements serve only to uphold victims’ emotional attachments to “hate,
anger, malice and revenge”, none of which are conducive to emotional or physical convalescence.9 Secondly,
one must also question whether punishing an offender more, will make them hate less. Does the labelling andstigmatizing of an individual as a “racist” or “hater” help to challenge the underlying causes of prejudice andidentity-based hostility in society? Indeed, there is little evidence to show that hate crime laws yield any
meaningful reparative benefits directly to victims, or to society by reducing overall levels of hate crime
offending.
Figure 1: Calculating the Justice Gap for Hate Crime10
Estimated total hate crimes
Estimated hate crimes reported to police
Hate crimes recorded by police
Prosecuted
Convicted
Sentence
uplift8Mark A. Walters, Abenaa Owusu-Bempah and Susann Wiedlitzka, “Hate Crime and the ‘Justice Gap’: The Case for Law
Reform”, Criminal Law Review, vol. 12 (2018) 961.
9Les Moran and Beverley Skeggs, Sexuality and the Politics of Violence and Safety (London, Routledge Taylor & Francis
Group, 2004).
10
Figure adapted from Mark A. Walters, Susann Wiedlitzka and Abenaa Owusu-Bempah, Hate Crime and the Legal Process:Options for Law Reform (Brighton, University of Sussex, 2017).

57

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
Further limitations of this legislative approach to combating hate crime have been examined in detailduring a two-year empirical study on the application and enforcement of hate crime legislation conducted inEngland and Wales.11 The researchers identify what is referred to as the “justice gap” for hate crime, whichrefers to the percentage of cases that “drop out” of the system once reported to the police and that do not
result in the implementation of hate crime laws. The justice gap is calculated using official statistics onrecorded hate crimes and comparing these with data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales. It
should be noted that the “justice gap” percentage does not represent the “conviction rate” for hate crime, butrather is an estimate of how many hate crimes are filtered out of the justice system.12
Data from 2017-18 shows that there were an estimated 97,520 incidents of hate crime that came to theattention of the police. During this same period the police recorded 94,000 hate crimes. The Crown Prosecution
Service charged and prosecuted 14,233 hate crimes that year, resulting in just over 12,000 convictions. Of
these convictions, an estimated 7,784 cases received a sentence uplift, signifying the application of hate crime
legislation. This means that the percentage of cases that drop out of the criminal justice system or which do
not result in the application of hate crime laws is 92%. In other words, the vast majority of hate crime cases
may result in no justice at all.
Figure 2: The Justice Gap for Hate Crime, England and Wales13

B. Readdressing Hate Crime: Understanding the Harms of Hate Crime
1. The Direct Harms of Hate
If hate crime laws are failing to provide justice for victims and communities, what else can be done tohelp repair the harms of hate? In order to determine how hate crimes can be most effectively addressed, weneed to first understand how demonstrations of hate harm individuals. A crime that is a direct attack against
a victim’s identity is likely to heighten that individual’s sense of vulnerability, beyond that of a non-hate-based
incident.14 Vulnerability relates to two elements of victimization. The first relates to the risk of victimization,
11

Mark A. Walters, Abenaa Owusu-Bempah and Susann Wiedlitzka, “Hate Crime and the ‘Justice Gap’: The Case for Law
Reform”, Criminal Law Review, vol. 12 (2018) 961.
12
The data should also be viewed with caution as there are some differences in which “hate crime” is defined by the criminal
justice agencies. The agreed definition of hate crime across the criminal justice system is “An offence which is perceived by
the victim or anyone else as being motivated by prejudice or hostility”, College of Policing, ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’(2014). However, “aggravated” offences in law are defined as offences which are (partly) motivated by (racial, religious, sexual
orientation, disability, or transgender identity) hostility, or where hostility is demonstrated during the commission of an
offence (see e.g. ss. 145 & 146 Criminal Justice Act 2003). Note also that the different datasets (CSEW, police, CPS data) may
not precisely match with police data time periods, as some recorded hate crimes take months before coming to court anddefinitions for hate crime vary for each dataset.
13
Ibid.
14
Gregory M. Herek, J. Roy Gillis, Jeanine C. Cogan, Eric K. Glunt, “Hate Crime Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Adults: Prevalence, Psychological Correlates, and Methodological Issues”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 12, No. 2 (1997)

58

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
which is increased for certain groups due to their identity, while the second relates to the level of harm thatvictims are likely to experience as a direct result of their targeted victimization. In the first element, hatecrime victims’ vulnerability becomes heightened due to the personal danger that is correlated with theirmembership of a particular identity group; typically linked to race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation,
disability and gender identity (amongst other characteristics).15 This heightened sense of vulnerability is
exacerbated by the fact that hate crimes are often repetitive in nature, meaning that victims are more likely
to experience multiple incidents of hate crime compared with non-hate victims.16
Victims of hate crime often try to grapple with their experiences while attempting to make sense of theworld as a just and fair place.17 Such a process can be difficult, as unlike non-hate victims, when hate crime
victims try to bring about a renewed sense of security and safety, they are less able to rationalize their
victimization as being in the “wrong place at the wrong time”. Indeed, in attempting to come to terms with
their experience of hate victimization, some individuals will feel that they are to blame for their own
victimization and, consequently, that they deserve to be punished for being “different”. Such an outcome canbe described as a process of internalized prejudice, whereby individuals from some identity groups experiencea sense of shame for who they are, compounding further their emotional turmoil.18 For example, those whohave had to come to terms with their homosexuality in an environment hostile towards LGB people, or who
have parents who have been disapproving of gay relationships, will have had emotional burdens put uponthem that require they conform to a heterosexual “lifestyle”.19 Such social pressures are likely to result infeelings of internalized homophobia. In other words, LGB people can feel that their being gay (bisexual)
equates to them being less decent, or worse still to their feeling that they are dirty or immoral compared toothers.20 Noelle states that experiences of hate crime can confirm that something is wrong with them, which
can create “characterological self-blame...in which one feels there is something they could do differently if
faced with the situation again”.21 The questioning of one’s own value as a decent human being invariably
destabilizes a person’s sense of “self” and their “place” in society. As a result of both internalized andexternalized experiences of hate, victims will often attempt to adjust the way they portray themselves to theworld in order to “fit in”. Those who can do little to change who they are can become trapped in a cycle ofself-loathing and of constantly feeling “othered”. It is no wonder, then, that LGB and also T youth and adults
experience higher rates of suicidal ideation compared with their straight cis gender counterparts.22
The constant threat of targeted victimization, and the internalized feelings of prejudice that many victims
experience, ultimately serve to enhance victims’ feelings of isolation, anxiety and depression.23 Data from the
Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) has shown that victims of hate crime are more likely thanvictims of CSEW crime overall to say they are emotionally affected by the incident (89% and 77%, respectively),
and more likely to be “very much” affected (36% and 13%, respectively).24 Further analysis of this data
showed that more than twice as many hate crime victims suffer a loss of confidence or feel vulnerable after
an incident (40%), compared with CSEW crime overall (18%). Hate crime victims are also more than twice as
195.
15Home Office, Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18 Statistical Bulletin 20/18 (London, Home Office, 2018).
16
Home Office, Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18 Statistical Bulletin 20/18 (London, Home Office, 2018).
17
Linda Garnets, Gregory. M. Herek and Barrie Levey, “Violence and victimization of lesbians and gay men: Mental healthconsequences”, in Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men, G. Herek and K. Berrill eds. (Newbury
Park, Sage, 1992)
18
Gregory. M. Herek, “Beyond ‘homophobia’: Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the twenty-first century”, Sexuality
Research and Social Policy, vol. 1, No. 2 (2004) 6.
19
Monique Noelle, “The Psychological and Social Effects of Antibisexual, Antigay, and Antilesbian Violence and Harassment”, inHate Crimes, P. Iganski, ed., vol. 2 (London, Praeger, 2009).
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid: 86.
22
See e.g., Katherine Johnson, Paul Faulkner, Helen Jones, Emma Welsh, Understanding Suicide and Promoting Survival inLGBT Communities (Brighton, University of Brighton, 2007).
23
Gregory M. Herek, J. Roy Gillis, Jeanine C. Cogan, Eric K. Glunt, “Hate Crime Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Adults: Prevalence, Psychological Correlates, and Methodological Issues”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 12, No. 2 (1997)
195; Gregory M. Herek, Jeanine C. Cogan and Roy Gillis, “Victim Experiences in Hate Crimes Based on Sexual Orientation”,
Journal of Social Issues, vol. 58, No. 2 (2002) 319; Jack Mcdevitt, Jennifer Balboni, Luis Garcia, Joann Gu, “Consequences forVictims: A Comparison of Bias- and Non-bias-Motivated Assaults”, American Behavioural Scientist, vol. 45, No. 4 (2001) 697.
24
Home Office, Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18 Statistical Bulletin 20/18 (London, Home Office, 2018).

59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
likely to experience fear, difficulty sleeping, anxiety or panic attacks or depression compared with victims of
CSEW crime overall.
The emotional traumas that are likely to be experienced by hate victims can also go on for longer periodsof time, compared with non-hate victims. Gregory Herek et al. found, for instance, that victims of homophobic
violence suffered from periods of depression, stress and anger for as long as five years after their primaryexperience of a hate crime.25 In contrast, non-hate related victims showed vast improvements within two
years. These prolonged periods of emotional trauma are likely linked to a heightened perception of threat
towards certain groups’ sense of safety in society.26 Iganski, for example, found that higher proportions ofhate victims reported being “worried” or “very worried” about future victimization.27 Such concerns arelikely to have behavioural consequences, with many victims feeling that they no longer feel safe in their own
neighbourhood, which in turn results in them avoiding certain locales.28
2.

Indirect and Community Harms
Hate crimes are not only likely to hurt individual victims more, but they can also have negative impacts
that affect entire communities of people. Hate crimes serve a symbolic message that certain groups of people
are unequal and undeserving of social respect in society.29 As such, hate crimes can have invidious effects,
not just on direct victims, but on all members of the victim’s “in-group”.30 Reports of hate-motivated violencein both national and local media help to promote a message of danger to groups of people, which in turn
fosters a hostile environment for those who are targeted.31
Paul Iganski refers to these impacts as “waves of harm”32 as they emanate out into society. Research has
shown that the indirect effects of hate crime can have profound emotional and behavioural impacts that
extend to those who share the victim’s group characteristic.33 For example, Monique Noelle conducted aqualitative study with lesbian, gay and bisexual participants in the wake of the homophobic murder ofMatthew Shepard in the USA in 1998. Noelle found that the murder of Matthew had significant consequences
for other LGB people who stated that they felt personally threatened as a consequence of sharing thevictim’s LGB identity. Barbara Perry and Shahid Alvi have also studied these indirect impacts, finding thatvictim group members often experience feelings such as shock, anger, fear, inferiority, and a sense that
violence towards them is the “norm”.34
Most recently, the Sussex Hate Crime Project spent five years studying the indirect impacts of both antiLGBT and anti-Muslim hate crimes in England. The researchers conducted a total of 21 separate studies
focusing on both quantitative methods (such as surveys and experiments) and qualitative methods (interviews).
Over 3,000 LGBT and Muslim people participated in the project. In their final report the researchers reportthat that simply knowing other LGBT or Muslim people in the local community who had been a victim of ahate crime, had significant impacts on their emotional well-being (most frequently resulting in high levels of
25

Gregory M. Herek, J. Roy Gillis, Jeanine C. Cogan, Eric K. Glunt, “Hate Crime Victimization Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Adults: Prevalence, Psychological Correlates, and Methodological Issues”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 12, No. 2 (1997)
195.
26
Ibid.
27
Paul Iganski, Hate Crime and the City (Bristol, The Policy Press, 2008), p. 83.
28
Ibid: 78-79.
29
Barbara Perry and Shahid Alvi, “‘We are all vulnerable’: The in terrorem effects of hate crimes”, International Review ofVictimology, vol. 18, No. 1 (2012) 57.
30
Paul Iganski, “Hate crimes hurt more”, American Behavioural Scientist, vol. 45, No. 4 (2001) 626.
31
Jenny L. Paterson, Rupert Brown and Mark A. Walters, “The short and longer term impacts of hate crimes
experienced directly, indirectly and through the media”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (2018). https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167218802835
32
Paul Iganski (2001), “Hate crimes hurt more”, American Behavioural Scientist, 45(4): 626-38.
33
Jenny L. Paterson, Rupert Brown and Mark A. Walters, “Feeling for and as a group member: understanding LGBT
victimization via group-based empathy and intergroup emotions”, British Journal of Social Psychology vol. 58, No. 1(2019) 211; Jenny L. Paterson, Rupert Brown and Mark A. Walters, “The short and longer term impacts of hate crimes
experienced directly, indirectly and through the media”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (2018). https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167218802835
34
Barbara Perry and Shahid Alvi, “‘We are all vulnerable’: The in terrorem effects of hate crimes”, International Review ofVictimology, vol. 18, No. 1 (2012) 57.

60

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
anger, anxiety, vulnerability and, to a lesser extent, shame).35 The study was the first quantitative study toevidence both correlation and causation of negative emotions with behavioural responses. In particular, it
showed that experiences of both direct and indirect hate crimes were linked to an individual’s perceptionsof threat (both physical and symbolic). Heightened perceptions of threat were linked to three main emotions:anger, anxiety and shame. Each of these emotions predicted certain behavioural reactions. For example,
anxiety was strongly correlated with avoidant behaviours (e.g. avoiding certain locations and changing one’s
appearance), while feelings of anger were most strongly correlated with proactive behavioural intentions (e.g.
joining rights-based groups, community-focused charities, and being more active on social media).36
In a series of longitudinal studies and psychological experiments the researchers also tested the effects
that media coverage of anti-LGBT hate crimes has on LGBT people. They found that media exposure toreported anti-LGBT hate crimes had lasting impacts on individuals’ emotions. The study found that individuals
from within the LGBT community were more empathic towards other LGBT individuals’ experiences of hatecrime, which in turn heightened their emotional responses to observing incidents via media outlets.
Figure 3: Flow chart illustrating the emotional and behavioural impacts of hate crime37
Be proactive
Feel angry
Be avoidant

Directexperiences
Indirect
experiencesFeelthreatened

Feel anxious
Improvesecurity
Feel shame
Endorseretaliation

Note. Black lines denote a positive correlation and the dotted line denotes a negative correlation

Figure 3 illustrates the emotional and behavioural reactions to hate crime using a pathway model. Eachemotional reaction to feeling threatened by hate crime predicts different behavioural responses. Black lines
denote a positive correlation with the following emotion/behaviour. The dotted line in the diagram denotesa negative correlation. For example, the emotion of anger is negatively correlated with avoidance, meaningthat those who experience anger as a predominant emotion are less likely to avoid certain locations, and areinstead more likely to be proactive (including joining rights groups or posting supportive messages about
LGBT rights on social media). It should be noted that the emotion of shame, experienced by fewer respondents
overall, may have the most negative consequences for individuals. Not only is this emotion positively
correlated with all the behavioural responses that are connected to other emotions, but it was the only
emotion to be linked with an endorsement to retaliate with violence.
C. Addressing the Harms of Hate Crime through Restorative Justice
Given the significant direct and indirect impacts caused by hate incidents it is incumbent upon governments
to invest in measures and interventions that can reduce these harms. One of the most increasingly utilized
35

Jennifer Paterson, Mark. A. Walters, Rupert Brown and Harriet Fearn, The Sussex Hate Crime Project: Final Report, Project
Report (Brighton, University of Sussex, 2018).
36
Jennifer Paterson, Rupert Brown, and Mark A. Walters, “Understanding victim group responses to hate crime: shared
identities, perceived similarity and intergroup emotions”, Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, vol. 25,
No. 2 (2018) 163.
37
Flow chart taken from Jennifer Paterson, Mark. A. Walters, Rupert Brown and Harriet Fearn, The Sussex Hate Crime
Project: Final Report, Project Report (Brighton, University of Sussex, 2018) with permission of authors.

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
interventions aimed at reducing the harms of crimes and other forms of conflict over the past 15-20 years is
restorative justice (RJ) practices. Howard Zehr in his seminal book Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime
and Justice argued that crime is a “wound in human relationships” which requires convalescence.38 Zehr
asserted that instead of focusing on punishing offenders for wrongdoing, perpetrators of crime should be
obliged “to restore and repair” harm. The restorative process works by bringing together the “stakeholders”
of an offence, typically the victim, offender and other affected community members, via a dialogical process
focused on how harms can best be repaired.39
Restorative justice practice emphasizes equal participation, with each participant having a voice and no
single individual being silenced by the domination of others.40 The main objective is for the parties to findresolution through inclusive discussion that is typically settled by a restorative agreement.41 In most cases,
perpetrators of harm are asked to put right the wrongs they have inflicted. Restoration should not be
imposed on the perpetrator and the aim is not to inflict further pain on them. In most cases, this involves
discussion and then agreement on a form of reparation that the perpetrator will carry out. Examples ofrestoration are provided below in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Types of reparation in restorative justice practices
Types of reparation

ExamplesMaterial

Provision of materials goods/ property- Financial restitution to victim/s- Replacement of damaged goods- Fixing of damaged property (e.g. painting fence)

Emotional

Apology- Verbal- Written- By physical gestures (handshake / embrace)

Relational

Renewal of interpersonal relations- Proactive: agreement regarding future interaction, e.g. “to say hello” when
walking past each other in the street- Restrictive: agreement to desist from certain future action (not to use certain
words or language/ not to play music at certain times)

Community

Unpaid work in local community- Volunteering at a charity- Removing graffiti from public property- Tidying/ litter picking in local parks

Moral learning

Studying/ research projects/ attendance at workshops/ courses- Carrying out a short research project supervised by a (restorative) justicepractitioner- Providing a short report on a topic relating to the harm caused- Presenting a reflections document to victim/family/local community about
what has been learned/new understandings

Multiagency support

Provision of additional social support- Social services support (social worker)- Educational support (teachers)- Housing advice (housing officers)- Medical (psychiatric) referral (doctors)- Alcohol or drug awareness (rehabilitation centres)

The restorative process typically begins by focusing on the perpetrator’s responsibility for having harmed
another (others). The aim of this part of the dialogical process is to bring about a greater level of understandingof the consequences of the perpetrator’s actions and is often accompanied by what Braithwaite labels as“reintegrative shaming”:

38

Howard Zehr, Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice (Scottdale, Herald Press, 1990), pp. 181.
Ibid. See also, Howard Zehr and Harry Mika, “Fundamental Concepts of Restorative Justice”, Contemporary Justice Review,
vol. 1 (1998) 47.
40
John Braithwaite, “Restorative Justice and Social Justice”, in Restorative Justice: Critical Issues, E. McLaughlin, R. Fergusson, G.
Hughes and L. Westmorland, eds (London, Sage, 2003), pp. 157.
41
Tony Marshall, Restorative Justice: An Overview (Research Development and Statistics Directorate, London, Home Office, 1999);
Howard Zehr and Harry Mika, “Fundamental Concepts of Restorative Justice”, Contemporary Justice Review, vol. 1 (1998) 47.
39

62

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Because shaming is a participatory form of social control, compared with formal sanctioning,which is more professionalized than participatory, shaming builds consciences through citizens
being instruments as well as targets of social control. Participation in expressions of abhorrence
toward the criminal acts of others is part of what makes crime an abhorrent choice for us
ourselves to make.42
The stakeholders of an offence, including the main parties’ community supporters, share their “stories” ofwhat has happened, and provide disapproval of the perpetrator’s actions. Facilitators should attempt toengage stakeholders in a process that focuses on encouraging the taking of responsibility for harmful actions,and not on dialogue that emphasizes the perpetrator as a bad person (known as shame management).43
Dialogue that focuses on action and harm as against individuals as wrongdoers, helps to ensure that theprocess is “reintegrative” as against “stigmatic”; the latter serving mostly to alienate and ostracize offenders.
Structured dialogue that is focused on harm reparation can also assist in inducing feelings of remorse,
which are the result of “empathy or understanding the effects on victims”.44 Those who are directly (orindirectly) confronted with the victim’s pain are more likely to feel compassion for them compared withprocesses that separate individuals and focus solely on punishment.45 Indeed, one factor that has consistently
been shown to be associated with increased empathy between different identity groups is structured
intergroup contact.46 If members of different groups encounter each other under the right conditions—broadly, those which do not exacerbate existing negative or unequal intergroup relations—then increased
empathy and trust and lessened anxiety are commonly observed.47 It is through the forming of theseempathic connections with those who have been harmed, that perpetrators are most likely to reassess theirpast behaviour. Where this is possible, perpetrators are better equipped to offer genuine reparation and show
contrition for the hurt they have caused.48
The dialogical process and the empathic connections that can be made during restorative meetings may
additionally form the catalyst for attitudinal and behavioural change. Though this cannot be an expected
outcome in every case, the most successful outcomes are where a perpetrator is reintegrated back into acommunity where they are less likely to re-harm others (Braithwaite 1989).
Figure 5: Howard Zehr’s Paradigms of Justice49

42

John Braithwaite, J. (1989), Crime, Shame, and Reintegration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 80.
John Braithwaite and Valerie Braithwaite, “Part I. Shame, shame management and regulation,” in Shame Management
Through Reintegration, E. Ahmed and others, eds. (Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 2001).
44
Gabrielle Maxwell and Allison Morris, “The Role of Shame, Guilt, and Remorse in Restorative Justice Processes for Young
People”, in Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations, E. Weitekamp and H. Kerner, eds. (Cullompton, Devon, Willan
Publishing, 2002), pp. 280-81.
45
Nathan Harris, Lode Walgrave and John Braithwaite, “Emotional Dynamics of Restorative Conferences”, Theoretical
Criminology, vol. 8, No. 2 (2004) 191.
46
Rupert Brown and Miles Hewstone, “An integrative theory of intergroup contact”, Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, vol. 37 (2005) 255.
47
Ibid.
48
Nathan Harris, Lode Walgrave and John Braithwaite, “Emotional Dynamics of Restorative Conferences”, Theoretical
Criminology, vol. 8, No. 2 (2004) 191.
49
Taken from Howard Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice (Intercourse, PA, Good Books, 2002).
43

63

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
Johnstone and Van Ness state that for a justice process to be considered as credibly “restorative” it mustbe guided by three key principles: “encounter”, “repair” and “transformation”. In effecting these principles
practices should encompass a number of attributes:50
１．It must be relatively informal and aim to engage the victim, offender(s) and others closely connectedto them (or the crime) in dialogue about what happened, why it happened, what harms resulted fromit and what should be done to repair those harms.
２．The process should emphasize empowering individuals who have been affected by the crime.
３．Facilitators must promote a response to the incident that focuses on responsibility and repairingharms, rather than on labelling, punishing and stigmatizing the offender.
４．Decisions made during meetings should be based on set values such as equality, respect and inclusion,
thereby resisting domination by any of the stakeholders.
５．Time should be devoted to talking about harm, the needs of victims and what is required to help themrecover from their experience of victimization.
６．Emphasis should be placed on strengthening or renewing relationships and resolving interpersonal
conflict.51
At the global level, the UN Resolution 2002/12 on the Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice
Programmes in Criminal Matters states at principle 6:
Restorative justice programmes should be generally available at all stages of the criminal justice process.
The Resolution defines “Restorative process” as:…any process in which the victim, the offender and/or any other individuals or community
members affected by a crime actively participate together in the resolution of matters arisingfrom the crime, often with the help of a fair and impartial third party.
Since the UN’s resolution, there has been a significant increase in the number of practices being used
globally within and outside criminal justice systems that aim to integrate most or all of these attributes,
including (among others): victim-offender mediation; family group conferencing; police-led restorativeinterventions; neighbourhood dispute panels; and community-based practices such as community mediation.52
Within the UK, for example, the Code of Practice for Victims 2015 states that victims are “entitled to receive
information on Restorative Justice from the police or other organization that delivers Restorative Justiceservices for victims in your area, including how you could take part”.53 A recent amendment to the Powersof Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 also now allows for the deferment of sentence for restorative
justice activities (sections 1 & 1ZA). These new developments in criminal justice practice mean that RJ
interventions are becoming increasingly common as both alternative justice mechanisms (especially in cases
involving low-level offences) and as additional interventions used alongside conventional/court processes.
With the proliferation of restorative practices comes the question: how effective have these practices
been in repairing harms and reducing reoffending? It is outside the scope of this paper to examine in any
detail whether RJ helps to reduce reoffending or if it helps to repair harms of crime generally. In brief,
50

Gerry Johnstone and Daniel Van Ness, “The meaning of restorative justice”, in Handbook of Restorative Justice, G. Johnstone
and D. Van Ness, eds. (Cullompton, Devon, Willan Publishing, 2007), p. 7.
51
See also, Howard Zehr and Harry Mika, “Fundamental Concepts of Restorative Justice”, Contemporary Justice Review, vol. 1(1998) 47; and John Braithwaite, “Restorative Justice and Social Justice”, in Restorative Justice: Critical Issues, E. McLaughlin andothers, eds. (London, Sage, 2003), for RJ “signposts”.
52
For an overview of these see Mark A. Walters, Hate Crime and Restorative Justice: Repairing Harms, Exploring Causes (Oxford,
OUP, 2014), chap 2.
53
Ministry of Justice, The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (London, Ministry of Justice, 2015), p. 35.

64

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
research has shown that victims “almost always indicate a high level of satisfaction with the process”.54
Numerous studies have also shown that restorative conferencing is more likely to reduce feelings of emotional
trauma such as anger, anxiety and fear compared with the court process.55 Victims are also less likely to fearthat their victimization will be repeated. For instance, Strang’s study in Australia found that just two percent of victims of violent offences anticipated that the offender would repeat the offence against them afterparticipating in a restorative conference, compared to 18 per cent who went to court.56
In terms of reoffending rates post RJ, the research here is less equivocal, though many studies haveproduced encouraging results. One recent study on juvenile offending and variations of restorative intervention
by Jeff Bouffard et al. found that “[o]ur results… suggest that each type of RJ intervention, even those thatare minimally involved (e.g., indirect mediation) reduces recidivism risk relative to juvenile court proceedings.”57
In another meta-analysis of ten studies by Lawrence Sherman et al. the authors similarly conclude that, “onaverage, RJCs [restorative justice conferences] cause a modest but highly cost-effective reduction in thefrequency of repeat offending by the consenting offenders randomly assigned to participate in such a
conference.”58
While these studies are broadly positive in outlining the potential benefits that restorative practices havefor resolving crime, there has been little research on whether RJ works for offences involving hate andprejudice. The question remains, then, can RJ help to repair the unique harms caused by hate crime, while
reducing repeat offending? In answering that question, I turn now to my own research study on two
restorative interventions that have been used to address the causes and consequences of hate crime in
England and Wales.
1.

The Hate Crime Project, Southwark Mediation Centre, London
The Hate Crime Project (HCP) is a project run at Southwark Mediation Centre (a civil society organization
based in London, England) that deals with cases involving both hate crimes and hate incidents. Cases areoften referred to the Project by schools, housing associations, the police and anti-social behaviour units, aswell as by self-referral. The key aims and objectives of HCP are:• o use inclusive dialogue to explore the effect that inter-personal conflicts has had on the lives of thoseT
directly and indirectly involved;•

To enquire into issues around prejudice and identity, which may be at the heart of the conflict; and•To find a resolution that is acceptable to all or most.

The mediation process is typically completed with a written and signed agreement outlining theundertakings that each party has agreed to. Agreements often include a commitment to cease certain
activities (including hate speech), commitments to avoid combative communication if similarly provoked in
the future; and sometimes an apology. Although the mediation process may not be termed as “fully”
restorative (most prominently because it does not typically involve individuals who have been charged witha criminal offence – although many had been accused of committing one), it does embody most of the54

Lawrence Sherman and Heather Strang, Restorative Justice: The Evidence (London, The Smith Institute, 2007).
Heather Strang, Repair or Revenge: Victims and Restorative Justice (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002). Reductions infeelings of fear after RJ are also reported in many other studies, see summary in Mark A. Walters, Hate Crime and Restorative
Justice: Repairing Harms, Exploring Causes (Oxford, OUP, 2014) chap 2.
56
Ibid.
57
Jeff Bouffard, Maisha Cooper, Kathleen Bergseth, “The effectiveness of various restorative justice interventions on recidivism
outcomes among juvenile offenders”, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, vol. 15, No. 4 (2017) 465.
58
Lawrence W. Sherman, Heather Strang, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Daniel J. Woods, Barak Ariel, “Are Restorative JusticeConferences Effective in Reducing Repeat Offending? Findings from a Campbell Systematic Review”, Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, vol. 31, No. 1. Some studies have shown no difference between reoffending rates (Lawrence Sherman and others,
Preliminary Analysis of Northumbria Restorative Justice Experiments, Lee Center of Criminology, Philadelphia Pennsylvania,
unpublished (2006), cited in Lawrence Sherman and Heather Strang, Restorative Justice: The Evidence (London, The Smith
Institute, 2007), while in one study on drink driving the reoffending rate increased post RJ (Lawrence. Sherman, Heather Strangand Daniel Woods, Recidivism Patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE), Canberra, Centre for
Restorative Justice, 2000).
55

65

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
principles that are central to restorative justice and was therefore considered to be a “restorative practice”.
The HCP was evaluated during 2008-2011 and involved 15 direct observations of direct and indirect
mediation meetings, followed by 23 semi-structured interviews with complainant victims involved in a totalof 19 separate hate crimes/incidents, each of whom had completed the mediation process. The study foundthat, in the majority of cases researched (17/23), interviewees stated that the mediation process had directly
improved their emotional well-being. In addition, most participants indicated that their levels of anger,
anxiety and fear were reduced directly as a result of having participated in the project. Such a finding isparticularly significant considering that these emotions are found to be heightened in cases involving hatecrime (outlined above).
Graph 1: Impact of community mediation on victims’ feelings of anger, anxiety and fear

Total N = 23.
NB: Measurement of fear was carried out on a 6-point ordinal scale. The measurement of anger and anxiety was based on a
10-point interval scale.

Analysis of interviewee data revealed four common variables that helped to explain the improvement ofemotional well-being during the restorative process:１．Participants were able to explain to the accused perpetrator and others the harms they had experienced,
while additionally talking about what it is like for them to be “different” in the community;
２．Participants felt supported by mediators who listened to their version of events;
３．The accused perpetrator signed an agreement promising to desist from further hate incidents; and４．Reparation was made to the complainant victim, including material, emotional, relational, community,
moral learning and multi-agency social support (see Figure 5).
As is outlined at the start of this paper, those who are perceived as somehow “different” are often exposedto the threat of targeted victimization, which in turn heightens their sense of vulnerability. Important,
therefore, is that any justice process that aims to address the harms of hate crime, reorientates victims froma position of disempowerment to that of empowerment. Restorative practices aim to achieve this by bringing
victims centre stage in the justice process where they are given a say over how their case should be
resolved. At the HCP, complainant victims were encouraged to express how they had been harmed by theirexperience of targeted victimization. By sharing their “stories” of harm, victims were able to explain to66

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
others, not only the impacts of their direct experience of victimization, but also what it was like for them tobe “different” in the community. For many complainant victims this also involved them articulating otherexperiences of prejudice and discrimination in the past and in other areas of their life. One restorative
practitioner interviewed explained:
In cases where I’ve worked with homophobia the party has wanted them [the offender] toknow... what it’s like to be a gay man or a woman in the community, what it’s like to experience...
homophobic prejudice, so there’s a lot of learning that can be gained.
The inclusivity of restorative practices also means that other “community” members can participate indialogue. As I have outlined above, part of hate crime’s unique character is that its harms extend beyond theimmediate victim, often affecting entire groups of people. Interventions that include the indirect victims ofhate crime are therefore particularly useful to repairing its broader harms. For example, one restorative
practitioner interviewed as part of the study (outside of the HCP) illustrated the importance of the victims’“community of care” also talking about their group identity.
They [the victim’s family members] went to great lengths telling me about their own family
history and who of their own family members they’d lost during periods of time [referring to
the Holocaust], and showing me memorabilia in the house, paintings and things which had been
done by relatives who were no longer with us, very personal stuff. And probably half an houror more spoke about those sorts of issues... Their identity was very, very important to them.
And they went to lengths to tell me how proud they were to be Jewish. And they certainly
want to maintain and hang on to that identity and those roots.
Allowing participants to vocalize their stories in this way can help them to recover from their experiencesof targeted victimization. This is especially important where victims’ narratives have been destabilized andwhere individuals experience self-blame, shame and internalized feelings of prejudice. By allowing victims ofhate to talk about their “difference”, restorative processes may help them to regain a sense of control overtheir victimization, while simultaneously reasserting their identity as something that should not be shamed.
A further case study from the HCP helps to illustrate the importance of talking about the effects of prejudice.
Case Study One: Homophobic violence and community mediation
Mr V’s case involved homophobic harassment and violence, which occurred over a period of 18 months. A
new neighbour (Mr X) moved in directly above Mr V’s apartment. At first the two neighbours would sayhello as they passed each other. However, when Mr X found out that Mr V was gay, he began to verbally
abuse him calling him amongst other things an “AIDS spreader” and on one occasion Mr V came home tofind “AIDS F**KER” spray painted on his front door.
Over the course of his targeted victimization, Mr V had his car keyed (scratched), he was spat on, and had
liquids poured over him by Mr X. Mr V’s abuse came to a head when on returning home from hospital one
day on crutches, he was pushed to the ground by one of Mr X’s friends. His front two teeth were knocked
out and he required hospital attention where he was given medication and several stitches in his chin. Mr
V described at interview the impacts of his victimization:“... it’s almost soul destroying for me because it took away everything I had and am as a person... it reached
the stage where I was frightened to go out of my home. I used to sit in here in the dark because I didn’t wantanyone to know I was in because I was frightened that if they knew I was in that they would do something.”
Eventually, Mr X was referred to the HCP where he and his neighbour were invited to participate inindirect (shuttle) mediation. The mediation process had a profound impact on both Mr V and his neighbour.
Mr V conveyed how important it was to be able to tell someone how the incidents had been affecting him.
This, he believed, had a profound impact on Mr X’s understanding of him and the harms he had been
inflicting:“I know that one of the things that [Mr X] automatically presumed was that all gay men are also paedophiles...
I think that was one of the issues and once all those issues were put to him in sensible conversation whilst
he’s not going to change his opinion totally, I think it led to him realising that everything was not as blackor white.”
Mr V obtained assurances from Mr X that the incidents would stop. He commented further that:“because the incidents have stopped... I’m healthier again I don’t have the stress, I’m not frightened to go outof my own home. Overall everything about my health is better.”67

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
a.

Preventing hate crime from recurring
Research suggests that hate crime victims are more likely to experience repeat forms of targeted
victimization compared with non-hate victims.59 In fact, in all of the 19 cases of hate crime and hate incidents
studied at the HCP, conflict between the stakeholders had been ongoing, usually occurring over a period ofseveral months but in some cases many years. Out of these 19 separate cases studied, 11 ceased directly
after either direct or indirect mediation between the parties took place. A further six cases stopped after the
mediator included other local agency professionals within further mediation meetings, including schoolteachers,social services practitioners, community police officers and local authority housing officers.
These findings suggested that the HCP helped to change the behaviours of those accused of hate andprejudice. However, it remained unclear whether those who had participated had also transformed theirprejudiced attitude towards those they had previously targeted. The success of a justice measure cannot be
judged solely on whether an offender has reoffended against the same victim. Recidivism rates must also be
examined in relation to whether the perpetrator has reoffended against others. If restorative practices arecapable of bringing about a genuine transformation in perpetrators’ world views, then RJ will not only help
to reduce harm in individual cases, but it might be a mechanism through which broader social change canbe brought about.
What, then, did the research tell us about RJ’s capacity to challenge the underlying causes of hate? Earlier
in this paper, I briefly outlined the theory of reintegrative shaming, and the role that empathy may play intransforming attitudes and in turn behaviour. In relation to hate crime, those who participate in structured
dialogue that focuses on harm and identity can be challenged to reassess their prejudiced beliefs and attitudes.
This was revealed in Case Study 1 where Mr X’s beliefs that all gay men were paedophiles and his stereotypes
that they spread HIV and AIDS were challenged. Numerous other examples were observed of individuals
whose views and attitudes were challenged and where renewed relationships emerged during dialogue.60
However, it is not only through restorative dialogue that attitudinal change can be fostered. There are also
opportunities for moral learning to be integrated directly into restorative agreements themselves. The
following case study illustrates how restorative justice can help to address both the behaviour and theattitudes of perpetrators through the study of identity “difference”.
Case Study 2: Antisemitic harassment – Exploring the harms of the Holocaust
through restorative dialogue
A 17-year-old Jewish male (K) was racially and religiously harassed by another 17 year old white British
male (Y) in Oxford. Y was later prosecuted and convicted of racially and religiously aggravated harassment
under section 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. As a first-time offender, Y was sentenced to a
Referral Order and later referred to Oxford Youth Offending Service where a restorative justice practitioner
was assigned to his case.
The RJ practitioner met with K and his father who spoke at length about how the incident had affected
them and how important their Jewish roots were. The facilitator asked K how the offender might help to
repair some of the harms he had caused. K suggested that the offender learn about the impacts caused byantisemitism. This suggestion led to the offender being asked to undertake a research project on the riseof the Nazi party and the devastating effects of antisemitism during WWII.
The offender manager, herself Jewish, supervised the project which was completed over a two-week period.
A project report was then presented back to the victim and his family by the RJ facilitator. At the end of
the six-page report, the young offender reflected:“I feel that I understand why incidents involving racial abuse against Jewish citizens and [other] races aretaken so seriously. As I have been... reading about... the Holocaust... [and] I understand the hurt and pain
the victim and his family must of [sic] felt when I said what I said to him as it was obviously a terrible time
for there [sic] race... it is not just him that it relates to but a whole race of people and that’s not what I
59
60

68

Home Office, Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18 Statistical Bulletin 20/18 (London, Home Office, 2018).
See Mark A. Walters, Hate Crime and Restorative Justice: Repairing Harms, Exploring Causes (Oxford, OUP, 2014), chaps 4, 6 and 8.

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
intended to do. On reflection of my actions I now feel that I will be able to use language more appropriately
towards over [sic] people and not to talk about peoples religions and believes [sic] in such a way... as it isunacceptable because of the pain it causes to the people it happens to.”When asked whether K believed the offender now had a better understanding of his identity background,
he replied:“Somewhat I think, well the fact that he had to do this [referring to the report]... he’s looked into some things
that hatred can do... the bad times of the Holocaust...”
The victim went on to state that he had not experienced any further forms of harassment from Y.
Whether the perpetrator in this case study experienced a genuine transformation in attitude is to someextent unclear.61 His own words indicated that he had come to a new understanding about the experiencesof Jewish people, while the words of his victim were also hopeful that his attitudes and behaviours willchange.
Although cases such as these illustrate the potential of RJ to facilitate both attitudinal and behaviouraltransformations, such an outcome does not occur in every case. In fact, the study also found examples of
perpetrators who continued to deny that they had acted out of prejudice throughout the restorative process.
In a couple of cases, perpetrators held deep-seated animosity towards certain communities and were keen
to vocalize their disdain of these groups.62 It is questionable whether the stakeholders of hate crime in suchcases can truly form the empathic connections that are key to promoting behavioural and attitudinaltransformation.
Yet in many respects it is questionable whether we can expect any justice measure to truly change how
someone sees others in the world. Indeed, we might even question whether it is ever the role of the criminal
justice system to attempt such a feat. Perhaps, then, what the case examples above show is not that RJ
should have as its key objective attitudinal change, but rather to acknowledge that it has the capacity tofacilitate moral learning that is more likely to bring about such changes when compared with other punishment
based interventions.
However, if restorative practices are to achieve even this, its practitioners must carefully apply theunderlying principles and processes (outlined above) that give RJ its unique reparative and transformative
capabilities. As we will see below, failure to administer these key principles properly may undermine RJ’s
capacity to both repair harm or challenge prejudice and hate.
2.

Restorative Police Disposals, Devon and Cornwall
The research study showed that, when administered with care, a restorative practice such as the HCP
can help not only to reduce harm, but also potentially reduce the likelihood of revictimization. What thoughof other “restorative” practices that do not specialize in hate crime and which are run more centrally byagencies such as the police? In attempting to evaluate a broader range of restorative practices, I included
within the study a newly established police-led restorative intervention.
In 2008, Devon and Cornwall Police Service trained all of its officers to use a new restorative disposal for“low level” offences. The disposal is only used where the victim agrees to take part in a street level
restorative encounter, (direct or indirect) victim-offender mediation or a restorative conference. A total of
fourteen victims of hate crime were interviewed who had participated in the restorative disposal. Out ofthese 14, seven (half) stated that they were satisfied with the outcome of their case. Seven interviewees also
felt that they were provided with an opportunity to explain how the incident affected them – a key aspectof restorative justice outlined above. However, unlike the HCP, only a minority of interviewees (four) statedthat they felt the restorative disposal had helped to repair the harms caused by the hate crime.
There were several reasons outlined by interviewees explaining this lower level of emotional recovery.
61

The offender was not available for interview during the study period.
See examples in Mark A. Walters, Hate Crime and Restorative Justice: Repairing Harms, Exploring Causes (Oxford, OUP,
2014), chap 8.
62

69

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
The first related to the fact that some participants had felt pressured by a police officer to participate in thedisposal. This had direct implications for the voluntariness of the process and effectively undermined a key
aspect of restorative practice. Despite 11 out of 14 victims stating that they had received an apology fromthe offender, most felt that the apology had been disingenuous. In several cases, the apology had been written
on a note pad without explanation as to why the crime had been committed. One interviewee explained:
It was a scam, it wasn’t really an apology. It made me feel really upset. If someone had reallyfelt that they had done something wrong they would have written something in a way toexpress their feelings... sending me a piece of paper was like rubbing salt into the wound. I
would have been more happy not receiving anything, it was like making fun of it.
Such a situation left this victim feeling more harmed by the intervention, while similar conditions resulted
in several other victims feeling “let down” by the police.
It should be noted that most offenders took part in what is called a “Level One” restorative intervention(i.e., street level encounters commonly used at the scene of the crime).63 Such encounters do not include
preparation meetings and they are unlikely to be held in a neutral setting. Only one victim was given an
opportunity to talk directly with the offender about the offence and how he could repair the harms he had
caused. These findings gave rise to the question of whether the Devon and Cornwall police restorative
disposals should be labelled as a “restorative” intervention at all.
D. Avoiding the Risks of Using Restorative Justice for Hate Crime
Interventions such as “restorative disposals” highlight a number of potential risks that are posed to
victims when using RJ for hate crime. The most significant concern is that restorative meetings might
expose victims to revictimization. The worst-case scenario is where an offender uses a restorative meeting
to re-vocalize their animosity towards the victim. Other concerns, however, relate to more subtle but
potentially equally invidious, manipulation of dialogue which sees those in positions of power exerting control
over other participants; thereby perpetuating their social marginalization.
These issues were central concerns during the HCP study and all victims and practitioners wereinterviewed in depth about any experiences of inequality, domination or revictimization during the restorative
process. Revictimization and power differentials are important considerations for all practitioners facilitating
restorative justice interventions. The study found that all complainant victim interviewees, bar one, statedthat they did not experience any feelings of inequality or revictimization during any part of the restorative
process.64 The direct observations also supported these claims, with detailed notes taken of communication,
including paralanguage65 and body language throughout, revealing no evidence of direct revictimization andlittle evidence of communicational domination. There were several factors that were highlighted during thestudy as minimizing power divisions, causal to hate crime cases, and that limited the risk of revictimization
during the restorative process:• Thorough preparation of participants before any direct dialogue took place. This involved outlining theaims and objectives of RJ meetings, to prepare participants for difficult questions, and to ascertain whether
accused perpetrators/offenders would re-vocalize their prejudices in direct meetings.
•

Ground rules at the start of meetings outlining expected language and behaviour during meetings.

•

 rranging for other participants to take part who supported the participant, but not the prejudice/s
A
that were central to the case, including: schoolteachers, sports coaches, friends and family members.

• U sing indirect mediation meetings, allowing participants to talk and for an agreement to be reached
between participants without them directly meeting.
63

See Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (CJJI), Facing Up To Offending: Use of Restorative Justice in the Criminal Justice System(London, HMIC, HMI Probation, HMI Prisons and the HMCPSI, 2012).
64
A total of 38 complainant victims were interviewed. The one victim who stated that he had felt discriminated against becauseof his ethnicity noted that this came from the facilitating police officer and not the other party involved in the incident.
65
Vocal features that accompany speech and contribute to communication, such as intonation, tone and timbre of voice.

70

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
Preparation was reiterated by practitioners throughout the study as being the key factor in reducing risk
to victims. This is most effectively achieved at the beginning of the process when facilitators meet and talkto the parties separately. It is here that practitioners can ask questions about what participants hope to gainfrom the process and, importantly, how they feel about what has happened and what they feel towards eachother. During direct meetings, ground rules as to expected behaviour and language were invariably set out.
Facilitators at this stage also considered involving participants who supported the accused perpetrator but
not the prejudices which they had demonstrated. This could, for example, involve inviting a teacher, sports
coach, or other person to engage in the dialogical process. Finally, where there is a risk of revictimization,
facilitators often offered complainant victims the opportunity to participate in an indirect/shuttle mediation
process. Half of complainant victims at the HCP decided that this was the better option for them.66

II. CONCLUSION
Restorative practices that are administered by experienced practitioners who prepare stakeholders ofhate crime for inclusive dialogue that is focused on the harms caused by targeted victimization can, in mostcases, expect to assist in the emotional recovery of victims and prevent ongoing incidents from recurring.
The success of any restorative practice is predicated on: the amount of preparation that facilitators put into
outlining the aims and objectives of RJ and preparing stakeholders for dialogue; facilitating opportunities for“story telling”; the support offered by facilitators and other agencies during the process; and agreements that
contain promises of desistance. There are, however, risks to administering “restorative” interventions forhate crime. The research study suggested that short “restorative encounters” that are used at the scene of
an incident risk exacerbating the harms of hate incidents and therefore should not be used. These so called“Level One” restorative disposals lack adequate preparation, with participants often feeling cajoled into
accepting the intervention. There is very little that is “restorative” about such practices.
Although RJ may well help to address both the causes and consequences of hate crime, it must not be
concluded that this approach is a panacea to tackling hate crime. In particular, policymakers and practitioners
must recognize that the concept of “community”, central to many restorative practices, can have both abenevolent and malevolent effect on hate crime. The study found that in most cases practitioners can utilize“community” as a tool; for example, by ensuring that the victim’s family and friends (part of their “communityof care”) are there to provide support during restorative meetings. However, simultaneously practitioners
working in the area of hate crime must come to understand that the notion of “community” can itself becausal to hate incidents. Community, defined by Braithwaite as a set of “dense networks of individualinterdependencies with strong cultural commitments to mutuality and obligations”,67 is often bound by norms
and values that can lead to the rejection of certain identities within its sphere. Barbara Perry argues that
communities that become fearful of certain “Others” develop mechanisms of control that are used tomarginalize certain groups.68 This can occur, for instance, where a community predominantly made up of asingle ethnic and religious group, evinces hostility towards new minority ethnic members who seek topractice different religious beliefs in the community. Some “dominant” community members may even takeit upon themselves to police the boundaries of what is acceptable community “membership” (including what
identities are acceptable) and use violence in order to vanquish those who fail to conform. In fact, a cogent
reason explaining why RJ did not completely repair the harms caused by hate crime in this study was thatvictims, although less fearful and angry towards the perpetrator in their case, continued to remain fearful
and anxious that other community members might target them. Practitioners must, therefore, be mindfulthat the inclusion of “community” members in the restorative process can involve those who are fearful or
prejudiced towards “othered” victims, potentially resulting in their experiencing further marginalization
during the process itself.
While concerns about the cultures of prejudice that can pervade entire communities must not be
underestimated, neither should they exclude the use of RJ for hate crime as some have suggested.69 Important
66

Note that the findings regarding emotional wellbeing did not differ across those who participated in direct compared withindirect mediation.
67
John Braithwaite, Crime, Shame, and Reintegration (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 85.
68
Barbara Perry, In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes (New York, Routledge, 2001).
69
Terri. Lee. Kelly, “Is Restorative Justice Appropriate in Cases of Hate Crime” (published in the Western Pacific Association of
Criminal Justice Educators Conference Papers, Lake Tahoe: Nevada).

71

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
is that practitioners fully comprehend both the harming and healing qualities of “community”, and areequipped with the knowledge of how to exploit those aspects which are healing, while guarding against thosewhich may be victimizing. As we have seen above, this can be achieved via adequate preparation, groundrules, and ensuring that appropriate “community supporters” participate in dialogue.
A. The Future of RJ for Hate Crime: Effective Training
Given the potential reparative outcomes of RJ for hate crime, should restorative measures be available toall victims of hate crimes across criminal justice systems? The answer to this question may depend on two
factors. The first relates to who the facilitators of RJ are. The realization of RJ’s key goals may depend
largely on whether facilitators are specialist independent practitioners, or whether they are existing criminal
justice practitioners who are additionally trained as RJ facilitators. Practitioners who are completely
independent from the criminal justice system are likely to bring with them greater levels of independence
and impartiality. In turn, they are less inclined to be influenced by the institutional processes that are
ingrained within a “system” and the institutional prejudices (i.e. unwitting and unthinking bias that can bedemonstrated towards certain groups) that continue to permeate many criminal justice systems.70 If justiceagencies do decide to use professionals from within the system (such as was the case in Devon and Cornwall
Police), it is likely that the organization’s traditional institutional values and practices will compete with thoseof RJ. This means that the principles of repair, encounter and transformation may be situated within aparadigm of justice that remains focused predominantly on retribution and/or punitivism. If this is the case,and recent experience from the UK suggests that practitioners will mostly come from within suchorganizations, it will be pivotal that these practitioners operate exclusively as restorative facilitators. Only
then can the values of conventional justice practices become secondary to the work of restorative practitioners.
The second factor relates to training and experience. Practitioners will clearly need to undertake advanced
training on the causes and consequences of hate in order to effectively negotiate the minefield of sociocultural issues pertinent to such cases. The HCP manager, herself a British African-Caribbean woman, hadover ten years’ experience mediating hate crime cases in one of London’s most diverse boroughs and was
discernibly well qualified in helping to resolve complex cases that involved hate-based conflict. Other
providers of RJ must ensure that facilitators have a suitable comprehension of the issues relevant to hatecrime before they carry out adequate preparation and effective facilitation of direct dialogue. In many
respects, I believe that this is RJ’s greatest hurdle in promoting justice for victims of hate crime. Culturalresistance within some institutions, especially those with strong conventional retributive values, will actively
limit practitioners’ ability to fully embrace the aims and objectives of RJ.
It is even more important, then, that facilitators represent the communities that they will be helping toresolve conflict. While I would not go so far as to suggest that only minority ethnic practitioners facilitate
conflict involving stakeholders from such backgrounds, it is certainly the case that facilitators who havethemselves experienced socio-cultural marginalization will have a greater appreciation of the harms that
discrimination and prejudice can cause. First-hand knowledge of identity “difference”, cultural diversity andthe socio-structural dynamics of hate crime will mean that facilitators are better able to understand preexisting divisions and help encourage the emotional connections central to restorative dialogue. Only when
restorative practitioners represent the multicultural communities that they serve can restorative practices
be truly inclusive of the differing cultures, ethnicities and orientations of the communities that are affectedby hate crime.

70

William Macpherson, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Cm 4262-I (London: The Stationery Office, 1999); David Lammy,
The Lammy Review: An Independent Review into the Treatment of, and Outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic
Individuals in the Criminal Justice System, (London, Lammy Review, 2017).

72

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO FOLLOW-UP ON THE DOHADECLARATION OF THE THIRTEENTH UNITED NATIONSCONGRESS ON CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Dimosthenis Chrysikos*

I. INTRODUCTIONThe United Nations crime congresses are the oldest periodic United Nations conferences devoted to a
specific subject area. Since 1955, they have been held every 5 years. They have been convened six times inWestern Europe (Geneva, 1955 and 1975; London, 1960; Stockholm, 1965; Milan, 1985; and Vienna, 2000), threetimes in Asia (Kyoto, 1970; Bangkok, 2005; and Doha, 2015); three times in Latin America (Caracas, 1980;
Havana, 1990; and Salvador, Brazil, 2010); and once in Africa (Cairo, 1995).
As the only major United Nations conferences in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, thecrime congresses constitute the largest and most diverse gatherings of policymakers and practitioners inthis area. Over half a century, the congresses have shaped international and domestic policies and havecontributed to novel thinking and approaches in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice.
The first Congresses, from 1955 to 1990, had adopted a large amount of soft law in the form of non-binding
resolutions, guidelines, action plans and a heterogeneous set of standards and norms. These latter soft law
instruments, collectively referred to as “United Nations standards and norms in crime prevention andcriminal justice”, cover a broad range of crime prevention and criminal justice issues, from the prevention ofjuvenile delinquency, the position of victims in the criminal justice process and the use of force and firearms
by the law enforcement officials, to the independence of the judiciary and capital punishment; and from thestandard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners to model treaties on extradition, mutual assistanceand transfer of proceedings in criminal matters and the model agreement on the transfer of foreign prisoners.
The introduction of congress declarations as the main output of the crime congresses was first introduced
in practice as an innovative element at the Tenth Congress in Vienna (2000). This practice was officiallyendorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 56/119 on the “Role, function, periodicity and duration of
the United Nations congresses on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders”. In that resolution,
the General Assembly decided, among others, that each United Nations congress on crime prevention andcriminal justice shall adopt a single declaration.

II. PAVING THE GROUND FOR THE DOHA DECLARATION
The process that leads to the adoption of a congress declaration goes through the preparatory arrangements
for each of the congresses. In those preparatory arrangements, the Commission on Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice has a leading role and it is on the recommendation of this Commission that pertinent
resolutions paving the ground for the congress ahead are adopted—through the ECOSOC—by the General
Assembly.1
In discharging its mandated function as the preparatory body for the congresses, the Commission on
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice gives consideration to the need for advance planning and close
coordination with all parties involved, including the relevant counterparts of the host country, and the* Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Division for Treaty
Affairs, Organized Crime and Illicit Trafficking Branch. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do
not reflect the views of the United Nations.
1
Recommendations for streamlining the preparatory phase of the congresses, as well as their conduct and follow-up, have been
made by the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Lessons Learned from United Nations Congresses on Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice at its meeting held in Bangkok from 15 to 18 August 2006. These recommendations were subsequently
endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 62/173 of 18 December 2007.

73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
institutes of the United Nations crime prevention and criminal justice programme network (PNI network). A
sine qua non condition for the effectiveness of such preparatory arrangements is the timely preparation of,and agreement on, a focused and streamlined agenda for each congress, under which there is a sequential
relationship between the main theme and the agenda items and workshop topics. The earlier a decision ismade by the Commission on agenda items and workshops topics,2 the easier it is to undertake preparatory
activities, in particular the development of the discussion guide and the arrangement of regional preparatory
meetings, including consultations on the workshops programmes with the institutes of the United Nations
crime prevention and criminal justice programme network and with relevant non-governmental organizations,for the organization of ancillary meetings.
The preparatory phase for each crime congress extends within a five-year cycle, with relatively distinct
stages, as follows:a) The Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice invites governments to make suggestions
on the theme, substantive agenda items and workshops topics of the congress (usually at the first yearof the cycle);b) The Commission decides on the theme, substantive agenda items and workshops topics of the congress(usually at the second year of the cycle);c) The Commission accepts the invitation of the future host country to organize the congress (usually at
the second or third year of the cycle);d) The Secretariat drafts the discussion guide that sets out the main issues and possible questions fordiscussion in respect of each substantive agenda item and workshop topic of the congress; input on
the discussion guide is also received from the Programme Network Institute(s) with responsibility fororganizing the respective workshop (usually at the third year of the cycle);e) The discussion guide of the congress is approved by the Commission (usually at the third year of thecycle);
f) Regional preparatory meetings are organized (during the first four months of the fourth year of thecycle);32

The Intergovernmental Group of Experts that met in Bangkok in 2006 proposed that attention needed to be paid to thenature and significance of potential topics for the congresses (and potentially for the content of a future Declaration as an
outcome of a congress), as follows: Issues that may require policy-making at the international level, including, if necessary,international standard-setting; issues with predominantly transnational aspects or dimensions that may require transnational
approaches and solutions; issues of substantial concern and importance to as many States as possible from all regions; issues
that strike a balance between crime prevention and control, on the one hand, and criminal justice, on the other; issues ofpolitical significance on which consensus has already been reached, but for which a reiteration of political commitment might
be warranted or desirable, or on which progress in action by the international community would be registered; issues likely tocommand consensus for the first time; and emerging issues that do not enjoy consensus and are not likely to do so in the near
future, but that warrant more discussion and accumulation of knowledge.
3
The regional preparatory meetings are consistently organized for the following regions: Asia and the Pacific, Western Asia,
Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe and Africa. In the cycles up to and including the one for the preparation of the NinthUN Crime Congress (Cairo, 1995), also European regional preparatory meetings for Europe were also held. These were thendiscontinued, only to be revived in preparation for the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice (Kyoto, 2020). The Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Lessons Learned from United Nations Congresses on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice, at its meeting held in Bangkok from 15 to 18 August 2006, stressed the importance of regional
preparatory meetings as a key preparatory tool for the congresses and noted that, despite globalization and the increasingly
transboundary nature of criminality, different regions of the world continued to have different concerns, which they wanted tosee properly reflected in the consideration of various topics by the congresses (see the report of that meeting, E/CN.15/2007/6,
para. 23).
During the cycles for the preparation of the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth UN Crime Congresses (1980-1990), interregional expert
meetings were organized on each of the agenda items. This practice was discontinued after the 1990 Congress, following the
restructuring of the United Nations Crime Programme.

74

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERSg) The Secretariat and the host country negotiate the “host country agreement”, which is necessary forthe organization of the congress (finalization of this agreement may continue to up to near the time of
the congress); andh) Informal negotiations begin on the text of the congress declaration (following the holding of theregional preparatory meetings). The declaration is formulated on the basis of the recommendations of
the regional preparatory meetings and the recommendations that are brought forward in the congress
documentation, including the discussion guide.

III. THE DOHA DECLARATION AS THE OUTCOME OF THE THIRTEENTH
UNITED NATIONS CONGRESS ON CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINALJUSTICE
Consistent with the general practice followed in preparation of crime congresses, as described above, theGeneral Assembly adopted in December 2012, upon the recommendation of the Commission on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice, resolution 67/184. In that resolution, the General Assembly decided that themain theme of the Thirteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice would be“Integrating crime prevention and criminal justice into the wider United Nations agenda to address socialand economic challenges and to promote the rule of law at the national and international levels, and public
participation”.
Pursuant to the offer of the Government of Qatar to act as host to the Thirteenth United Nations
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, the General Assembly decided, in its resolution 68/185,
to hold the Thirteenth Congress in Doha from 12 to 19 April 2015, with pre-Congress consultations to be heldon 11 April 2015.
The Assembly also decided that the high-level segment of the Thirteenth Congress would be held during
the first two days of the Congress in order to allow Heads of State or Government and Government ministers
to focus on the main theme of the Congress and to enhance the possibility of generating useful feedback.
In its resolution 67/184, the General Assembly approved the provisional agenda for the Thirteenth
Congress, finalized by the Commission at its twenty-first session, and the issues under consideration by
workshops to be held within the framework of the Thirteenth Congress.
In its resolution 68/185, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to proceed with theorganization of the four regional preparatory meetings for the Thirteenth Congress and to make available
the necessary resources for the participation of the least developed countries in those meetings, in accordancewith past practice.
All four regional preparatory meetings have been held successfully: the Asian and Pacific Regional
Preparatory Meeting, from 22 to 24 January 2014 in Bangkok, Thailand; the Western Asian Regional
Preparatory Meeting, from 3 to 5 February 2014 in Doha, Qatar; the Latin American and Caribbean Regional
Preparatory Meeting, from 19 to 21 February 2014 in San José, Costa Rica; and the African Regional
Preparatory Meeting, from 9 to 11 April 2014 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
In its resolution 68/185, the General Assembly further decided that, in accordance with its resolution
56/119, the Thirteenth Congress would adopt a single declaration that would contain the major
recommendations reflecting and emerging from the deliberations of the high-level segment, as well as thediscussion of the agenda items and the workshops.
Informal consultations for the formulation of the draft text of a declaration of the Thirteenth Congress
took place between October 2014 and early 2015 in Vienna. Consultations involved Member States as wellas other U.N. entities, intergovernmental organizations and the institutes of the United Nations crime
prevention and criminal justice programme network in order to seek their support in advancing the aims of
the Thirteenth Congress.
The Doha Declaration on “Integrating Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice into the Wider United
75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
Nations Agenda to Address Social and Economic Challenges and to Promote the Rule of Law at the Nationaland International Levels, and Public Participation” was the final outcome of the Thirteenth United Nations
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. It was then endorsed by the General Assembly in its
resolution 70/174.
The main issue underpinning the Declaration, as its common denominator, was the interrelationship andreciprocal reinforcement between the rule of law and sustainable development. Key commitments reflectedin the Doha Declaration included, among others, the following:a) Integrity and accountability in the criminal justice systems;b) Rehabilitation and social reintegration of prisoners;c) Promotion of a culture of lawfulness among children and youth;d) Integrating crime prevention and criminal justice and rule-of-law-related aspects into educational
systems; ande) Fostering international cooperation and addressing new and emerging forms of crime.
The Doha Declaration was a ground-breaking development in different ways:a) For the first time, the negotiations towards the Doha Declaration were successfully completed before
the Congress itself;b) For the first time, the content of the Declaration reflected a downstream and upstream flow between
the substantive agenda items and the workshop topics;c) For the first time, a political declaration of a Crime Congress served as a basis for the development ofan operational programme;d) The Declaration was adopted in April 2015 at a critical juncture, while the discussions and negotiations
on the establishment of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda at the United Nations had begun,
but were still ongoing; ande) (As a result of (d)), the Doha Declaration essentially provided an added impetus to include therecognition of the interrelationship between the rule of law and sustainable development in the final
text of the 2030 Agenda, which is most particularly reflected in the inclusion of Goal 16.
The Doha Declaration recognized the importance of strengthening crime prevention and criminal justicesystems and the institutions comprising them, with a view to ensuring that they are fair, just and humane,as well as accessible and responsive to the needs and rights of all individuals.
The Declaration also stressed the commitment and political will of Member States at the highest level on
the importance of implementing comprehensive crime prevention and criminal justice policies and strategies
which promote the rule of law at the national and international levels. It further highlighted that reliable, fair
and transparent justice and governance systems contributed to sustainable development by fostering aculture of trust in the authorities to lead and work with an independent, reliable and professional judiciary,and in line with well-planned and integrated crime prevention strategies.
The Declaration also stressed the need to strengthen cooperation to address persistent challenges posedby organized crime, corruption and terrorism, as well as new and emerging forms of crime and terrorism at
the national, regional and international levels. In this regard, international cooperation was recognized as acornerstone of the efforts of States to prevent, prosecute and punish all crimes, demonstrating the direct link
between development and crime, and the negative economic and social implications of organized criminal
activities.

76

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
The Declaration further recognized the need for Member States to continue supporting the implementationof capacity-building programmes and training in preventing and combating terrorism, including by taking
into account the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters, preventing the financing, mobilization andrecruitment by terrorists, as well as countering violent extremism and radicalization, which can be conducive
to terrorism.
Finally, the Declaration recognized that while the development and adoption of crime prevention policies,
the strengthening of criminal justice institutions and their monitoring and evaluation are the responsibilityof Governments, the successful implementation of such policies should be based on a participatory, collaborativeand integrated approach that includes all relevant stakeholders, among them, most importantly, are children
and youth.
The Declaration was anchored in the fundamental importance of universal education for children andyouth, for the prevention of crime, terrorism and corruption, as well as for sustainable development. It placeda premium on instilling shared values based on the importance of the rule of law and protection of humanrights to promote a culture of lawfulness.

IV. FOLLOW-UP TO THE DOHA DECLARATION
A. National Efforts to Implement the Declaration
Efficient and effective ways to ensure appropriate follow-up to outcomes of the congresses were thoroughly
discussed at the intergovernmental expert group meeting in Bangkok in 2006. Possible scenarios underconsideration for such follow-up included resolutions to be presented to the Commission on Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice, action plans, checklists, mid-term reviews by the Commission, or discussions on followup at future congresses.
In that connection it was pointed out that outcomes, including recommendations, could be deemed as
falling into two broad categories: (a) those that invited or required policy level action by appropriate bodies,such as the Commission; and (b) those that called for national level action by Governments and consequently
necessitated the availability of a channel of communication through which States would be able to provide
information either to the Commission or to subsequent congresses (or to both) on action taken and progressachieved. With respect to the latter category, it was stressed that there was “questionnaire fatigue” and,
consequently, chronic underreporting that impeded the ability of competent bodies to obtain sufficient
information and draw appropriate conclusions. Therefore, the Intergovernmental Group of Experts welcomed
exploring alternative means of information-gathering, including voluntary self-assessments followed by oral
reporting to the Commission under the appropriate agenda item. Such an approach would benefit fromStates using the template of a checklist offered by Thailand as an innovative tool that could guide them inundertaking such a detailed self-assessment and developing, as appropriate, a corresponding plan.4
The advice offered by the IEG was taken into consideration by the Commission on Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice and the Secretariat in their efforts to ensure that the crime congresses, at least the ones
held over the last 20 years, are not “one-off” events with no further follow-up. The follow-up to the congress,
together with the preparations for the next congress, are both components of a standing thematic item on
the agenda of the Commission.
Especially with regard to the follow-up to the Doha Declaration, as the outcome of the Thirteenth Crime
Congress, the Secretariat, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 70/174 by which the Doha Declaration
was endorsed, distributed the report of the Thirteenth Congress, which included the Doha Declaration, toMember States, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, so as to ensure thatits recommendations are disseminated as widely as possible.
In the same resolution, the General Assembly invited Governments to take into consideration the Doha
Declaration and the recommendations adopted by the Thirteenth Congress when formulating legislation andpolicy directives and to make every effort, where appropriate, to implement the principles contained thereinin conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The same invitation was
4

See E/CN.15/2007/6, para. 32.

77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
reiterated in resolutions 71/206, 72/192 and 73/184 of the General Assembly.
Member States were also invited to identify areas covered in the Doha Declaration where further tools
and training manuals based on international standards and best practices were needed, and to submit that
information to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice so that it may take that information
into account when considering potential areas of future activity of the United Nations Office on Drugs andCrime (UNODC).
In addition, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to seek proposals by Member States
on ways and means of ensuring appropriate follow-up to the Doha Declaration, for consideration and action
by the Commission at its twenty-fifth session. Moreover, in the resolution, the General Assembly requested
the Commission to review the implementation of the Doha Declaration under the standing item on its agenda
entitled “Follow-up to the Thirteenth Congress and preparations for the Fourteenth United Nations Congress
on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice”.
The present report provides information on the follow-up to and implementation of the Doha Declaration
geared towards operationalizing those recommendations in the Declaration that require immediate action
Based on the mandates provided by the aforementioned General Assembly resolutions, the Secretariat
prepared and presented to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, at its 25th, 26th and27th sessions (2016, 2017 and 2018) respectively, reports containing information on action taken by Member
States to implement the principles contained in the Doha Declaration.5 These reports contained summaries
of national responses on measures taken to ensure the implementation of, and follow-up to, the Doha
Declaration; an overview of action taken by Member States to implement the Doha Declaration and proposals
made by them for ways and means of ensuring appropriate follow-up to it; and accumulated knowledge andoverview on legislative developments and policy directives/initiatives at the national level to implement the
principles contained in the Declaration.
B. Global Programme for the Implementation of the Doha Declaration
Following the endorsement of the Doha Declaration on Integrating Crime Prevention and Criminal Justiceinto the Wider United Nations Agenda to Address Social and Economic Challenges and to Promote the Ruleof Law at the National and International Levels, and Public Participation by the General Assembly in its
resolution 70/174, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) launched, with the support of theGovernment of the State of Qatar, the Global Programme for the Implementation of the Doha Declaration:
Towards a Culture of Lawfulness. The activities under the global programme directly support the operational,
legislative and policy-related work required by Member States to make progress towards and successfully
achieve the goals and targets contained in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.
The global programme comprises four specific and interrelated components: strengthening judicial
integrity and preventing corruption in justice systems; fostering prisoners’ rehabilitation and social integration;
preventing youth crime through sports; and an initiative entitled “Education for Justice”, the aim of which is
to develop age-appropriate educational materials and programmes on topics related to crime prevention andcriminal justice, with a view to assisting Member States in integrating those programmes into the curriculaof their schools and universities.
Since the inception of the global programme a total of more than 9,700 stakeholders, primarily judges,
prison practitioners, academics, teachers, sports coaches, representatives of relevant non-governmentalorganizations and an increasing number of children and youth in more than 158 countries have been reachedthrough the activities carried out under the programme. Furthermore, more than 4,000 stakeholders from
121 countries benefited from a multitude of capacity-building activities, including conferences, workshops andtraining events.
The global programme has also produced a host of innovative knowledge products and tools for a diverse
audience of practitioners, including the Line-up, Live-up: Trainer Manual on Life Skills Training ThroughSport to Prevent Crime, Violence and Drug Use, the Roadmap for the Development of Prison-based5

See documents E/CN.15/2016/11, E/CN.15/2017/11 and E/CN.15/2018/11.

78

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
Rehabilitation Programmes, and the “Resource Guide for organizing model United Nations conferences that
address crime prevention, criminal justice and other aspects of the rule of law”.
The implementation of the global programme continues at an increased pace, and several initiatives havetaken place, in particular the launch of the Global Judicial Integrity Network in April 2018. Under the
programme, more than 13,000 stakeholders from more than 189 countries have been reached; capacitybuilding has been structured and developed for more than 5,400 stakeholders from more than 150 countries;
awareness-raising and advocacy activities are reaching more than 8,000 stakeholders from 180 countries;
more than 130 events have been held, including expert group meetings, training and awareness-raising
workshops. In terms of gender distribution, 43% of the participants are women and 57% male participants.
More than 95% of the beneficiaries rated the quality of events as high or very high; more than 85% of thebeneficiaries indicated that they would apply the knowledge and skills acquired immediately.
In terms of policy impact, the Human Rights Council, in its resolution 35/25, “noted with appreciation thecapacity-building activities and specialized curricula developed”. The Conference of States Parties to theUnited Nations Convention against Corruption, in its resolution 7/6, “welcomed the work under the Global
Programme”. The report of the Secretary-General at the 72nd session of the General Assembly (A/72/175),
welcomed the follow-up to the implementation of the Doha Declaration. The report of the Executive Directorof UNODC to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (26th session, 2017) highlighted the
Global Programme as a catalyst and a resource to help States in achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals.
1.

Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Preventing Corruption in Justice Systems
The Judicial Integrity initiative within the framework of the Global Programme for the Implementationof the Doha Declaration aims to assist judiciaries across the globe in strengthening judicial integrity andpreventing corruption in the justice sector, in line with article 11 of the United Nations Convention against
Corruption.6 For that purpose, the initiative has facilitated the creation of the Global Judicial Integrity
Network. The Network met for the first time in April 2018 in Vienna, attracting more than 350 participantsfrom 106 countries, 40 judicial associations and relevant organizations, and 35 Chief Justices.
According to its Terms of Reference, the Global Judicial Integrity Network is a platform to provide
assistance to judiciaries in strengthening judicial integrity and preventing corruption in the justice system.
The Network intends to promote peer learning and support activities among judges and other justice sector
stakeholders, including the Judicial Integrity Group; facilitate access to relevant tools and resources on
various issues relating to judicial integrity; and support the further development and effective implementationof principles of judicial conduct and the prevention of corruption within the justice system. Through the
Network, global guidance and technical materials on judicial integrity and anti-corruption will be developedand strengthened, and technical assistance will be provided to support judiciaries in the development andimplementation of strategies, measures and systems to strengthen integrity and accountability in the justicesystem.
The core objectives of the Network are the following: (i) to promote networking opportunities for judges
and other justice sector stakeholders through virtual and face-to-face opportunities for dialogue, with a viewto continuously expanding the Network and advancing the exchange of knowledge and mutual support instrengthening judicial integrity and preventing corruption in the justice system; (ii) to facilitate the access ofjudges and other justice sector stakeholders to existing guidance materials, tools and similar resources on
judicial integrity; (iii) to assist in the identification of gaps in international standards and technical resources
on judicial integrity and to support the development of new tools and technical resources to address suchgaps; and (iv) to facilitate the identification of technical assistance needs and the provision of required
technical assistance, including through facilitating peer-to-peer support and learning opportunities.

6

UNODC has been providing assistance to Member States in strengthening judicial integrity, accountability and professionalism
since 2000, by supporting the development of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and the related commentary (see thefollowing link:
https://www.unodc.org/res/ji/import/international_standards/commentary_on_the_bangalore_principles_of_judicial_conduct/
bangalore_principles_english.pdf) and producing various tools to help judiciaries to that effect.

79

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
The participation in the Network is open to individuals and institutions, as follows: (i) Judges, magistrates,
other judicial office holders, members of judicial councils and court personnel regardless of the participationof their respective judiciaries; (ii) Judiciaries; (iii) Judicial associations; (iv) Other justice sector stakeholders;and (v) Relevant international organizations
In its commitment to the promotion of a culture of lawfulness, UNODC’s Global Programme for the
Implementation of the Doha Declaration has been contributing to strengthening judges’ knowledge foundations
and helping rejuvenate their instincts. One of the resource packages developed to this end is the Global
Judicial Integrity Network’s tailor-made Judicial Ethics Training Package, which includes an e-learning
course, a self-directed course, and a Judicial Conduct and Ethics Trainers’ Manual.
The training tools are aimed at providing newly appointed and serving members of the judiciary with asolid understanding of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and the requirements of article 11 of theUnited Nations Convention against Corruption. Strong demand for such tools was identified throughcooperation with Member States under the Global Programme.
2.

Fostering the Rehabilitation and Social Integration of Prisoners
Within the framework of the Global Programme for the Implementation of the Doha Declaration and its
pillar on fair, humane and effective criminal justice systems, UNODC supports Member States in establishinga more rehabilitative approach to prison management. Investments into corresponding programmes for
prisoners are one of the best and most cost-effective ways of preventing their reoffending, with significant
benefits not only for the individuals concerned, but also for public safety more broadly.
UNODC assists Member States in breaking the cycle of reoffending by providing prison administrations
with technical guidance on how to initiate and/or enhance rehabilitation programmes, in close coordination
with other (non-)governmental stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector. All guidance andadvisory services are based on the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners(the Nelson Mandela Rules) — UNODC’s ‘normative compass’ in this regard.
In support of this objective, UNODC has developed a Roadmap for the Development of Prison-based
Rehabilitation Programmes, which provides practical guidance for prison administrations in order to assist
them in developing high-quality and sustainable rehabilitation programmes that meet international standards.
Additional guiding tools published under the auspices of the Global Programme are the Handbook on AntiCorruption Measures in Prisons7 and the second edition of the Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of
Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders.8 Another tool currently under development is apractice-oriented handbook on the classification of prisoners.
These guidance materials form the basis for concrete technical assistance provided by UNODC, in asecond step, to selected Member States around the world to support the implementation of new or enhanced
prison-based effective rehabilitation and social reintegration programmes. Sound planning, including the
proposed programme’s responsiveness to local needs, human rights compliance as well as sustainability
provided key selection criteria for such support, which focuses on education, vocational training and work
programmes for prisoners.
As a third step, UNODC is supporting the creation of national brands of prison products aimed atenhancing prisoners’ work and products with a view to generate income for prisoners, increase their selfesteem, qualifications, and employability upon release, as well as, more generally, to raise awareness in thegeneral public that prisoners are a continuous part of society. A relevant website provides information on
good practices in prison-based work programmes and national brands of prison products.9
UNODC is preparing a technical guide to assist Member States in creating or strengthening their national
brand of prison products emanating from prison-based work programmes in line with international standards.
7

Available at https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/17-06140_HB_anti-corr_prisons_eBook.pdf.
Available at https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/crimeprevention/Introductory_Handbook_on_the_Prevention_of_Recidivism_and_the_Social_Reintegration_of_Offenders.pdf.
9
Available at https://www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/news/index.html?tag=2432.
880

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
The guide will focus on requirements in terms of safeguards to preserve prisoners’ rights, and on requirements
related to marketing and the organizational set-up of such a brand.
3.

Preventing Youth Crime through Sports
As part of its efforts to support the implementation of the Doha Declaration, UNODC has launched a
global youth crime prevention initiative that builds on the power of sports as a tool for peace. The initiative
aims to promote sports and related activities to prevent crime and to effectively build resilience of at-riskyouth. Strengthening the life skills of youth is a key objective in order to minimize risk factors and maximize
protective factors related to crime, violence and drug use. By enhancing knowledge of the consequences ofcrime and substance abuse and developing life skills, the initiative seeks to positively influence behaviour andattitudes of at-risk youth and prevent anti-social and risky behaviour.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development underlines the growing contribution of sports as a tool forpeace in its promotion of tolerance and respect. It also highlights the contributions that sport can make tothe empowerment of communities as a whole, to individuals (particularly women and young people) as wellas to health, education and social inclusion.
More specifically, sports offer an important opportunity for building life skills of at-risk youth that allow
them to better cope with daily life challenges and move away from involvement in violence, crime or druguse.
Through partnerships with Governments, sports organizations and civil society, UNODC conducts nationaland regional youth-oriented awareness raising sports initiatives to further promote civic values anddisseminate the benefits of sport in keeping youth from becoming involved in crime and violence. Youth is,thus, placed at the centre of outreach activities as “agents for change”. By sharing their experiences on how
sports and life skills training helped them to stay away from crime, youth will engage and reach out to otherat-risk youth.
Line Up Live Up — UNODC’s evidence-informed and sports-based life skills training curriculum — hasbeen designed as a unique tool that transfers the accumulated expertise of the United Nations and otherpartners in implementing life skills training for crime and drug use prevention to sport settings. Through theLine Up Live Up programme, sports coaches, teachers and others working with youth in sports settings cantarget valuable life skills, such as resisting social pressures to engage in delinquency, coping with anxiety andcommunicating effectively with peers, through a set of interactive and fun exercises. The training programme
has been first tested and piloted in Brazil in 2017 and has been and continues to be implemented in a numberof countries across the world, including those in Africa, Central Asia, the Middle East and South America.
4.

The “Education for Justice Initiative” (E4J)
The Education for Justice (E4J) initiative seeks to prevent crime and promote a culture of lawfulness
through education activities designed for primary, secondary and tertiary levels. These activities will help
educators teach the next generation to better understand and address problems that can undermine the ruleof law and encourage students to actively engage in their communities and future professions in this regard.
The common objective at all levels is to improve education on crime prevention, criminal justice and the ruleof law.
In support of this aim, E4J focuses on promoting and teaching values such as acceptance, integrity,
respect and fairness at the primary level (6-12 years old). E4J’s educational materials contribute to building
resilience among children. Moreover, these tools help to equip them with skills such as conflict resolution,
critical thinking, teamwork and empathy. These values and skills are crucial in reducing the tolerance andacceptance of crime and violence as well as assisting children in solving ethical dilemmas.
E4J’s educational materials also provide support in education relating to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development Goals, in particular Goals 4, 5, 10 and 16. Some products and activities for the primary level arebeing developed in partnership with UNESCO. Other educational materials have been developed by UNODC
with the involvement and consultation of educators, international organizations, non-governmentalorganizations and, most importantly, with children.

81

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
In the field of secondary education, E4J developed a Resource Guide to support those who organize Model
United Nations (MUN) conferences to incorporate issues from UNODC mandate areas into their conferences.
The Model UN Guide (Resource Guide for Organizing Model United Nations Conferences that Address
Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice and Other Aspects of the Rule of Law) intends to provide support toorganizers of, and students taking part in, Model United Nations conferences that address crime prevention,
criminal justice and other aspects of the rule of law. It has been prepared to further knowledge of crime
prevention, criminal justice and other aspects of the rule of law in schools and universities. The Resource
Guide comprises seven sections relating to core topics, an introduction and information on useful resources,
as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

An introduction: what the Guide can help students and organizers achieve;
Crime prevention, criminal justice and other aspects of the rule of law for Model United Nations;
Crime prevention, criminal justice, the rule of law and the Sustainable Development Goals;
United Nations congresses on crime prevention and criminal justice;Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice;
Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption;
Rules for simulating the United Nations crime prevention and criminal justice bodies; andResources.

In the field of tertiary education, UNODC has developed a series of university modules and other tools to
assist academics teaching on some of today’s most crucial threats. Specifically, E4J aims to support tertiarylevel educators and academics in their efforts to transmit knowledge and create a deeper understanding ofrule of law related issues, with a focus on the subject areas of crime prevention and criminal justice, anticorruption, organized crime, trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants, firearms, cybercrime, wildlife,
forest and fisheries crime, counter-terrorism as well as integrity and ethics. The university module series
and the related tools were developed in close coordination with more than 590 academics and national
experts from more than 400 universities and 96 countries. The university modules are designed for use as astand-alone teaching resources, or as a means of enhancing existing courses in criminology, law, politicalscience, international relations, business, sociology, and many other disciplines.

V. EPILOGUE: THE WAY FORWARD—FROM DOHA TO KYOTO AND BEYOND
Bearing in mind the need for continuity, the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice, to be held in Kyoto, Japan, in April 2020, is uniquely placed to build on the achievementsof the Thirteenth Crime Congress and the Doha Declaration, and support the implementation for the years
2020-2025 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development up until five years before its intended maturity.
Having said that, a reversed analogy should be taken into account: “From Kyoto to Doha and beyond”
referred to the multilateral negotiation and agreed course of action in the field of climate change (Kyoto
Protocol – Doha Amendment – Paris Agreement). Similarly, the analogy of the roadmap “from Doha to Kyoto
and beyond” leads to thinking of the past United Nations congresses, as well as the forthcoming one in Kyoto,as important milestones towards a much bigger outcome, namely the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, tothe extent that the rule of law contributes substantially to achieving sustainable development

82

CRIMES MOTIVATED BY INTOLERANCE ANDDISCRIMINATION: OVERVIEW OF TRENDS AND RESPONSES
AT THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVELS
Dimosthenis Chrysikos*

I. INTRODUCTION: “FROM SALVADOR TO DOHA” – POLITICALCOMMITMENTS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL TO COMBAT CRIMESMOTIVATED BY INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION
Crimes motivated by intolerance are among the most severe expressions of discrimination and constitutea core fundamental rights abuse. They demean victims and call into question an open society’s commitment
to pluralism and human dignity. Furthermore, although not always the case, they are generally committed
against groups that have already experienced some form of social discrimination. The lack of an effective
response from authorities encourages perpetrators to reoffend and further alienates the victim and her or
his community. This, in turn, can undermine wider social cohesion, as communities are set against each otherand can provoke retaliatory attacks. At their most extreme, these crimes can spiral into civil unrest if
competent authorities do not acknowledge and address them.
It is essential for Member States to take measures to prevent such crimes from taking place, but it isequally important to ensure that victims have access to justice. This means enabling them to report theirexperiences to competent institutions, and then providing them with the support they need. At the sametime, the effective handling of intolerance crime cases requires close cooperation across the criminal justiceagencies and not only at the operational level, but also at the policy level.
The Salvador Declaration, adopted by the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice and endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 65/230, was a first step todemonstrate the political commitment of the international community to address the challenges posed bythose crimes. In that Declaration, Member States expressed great concern about “criminal acts against
migrants, migrant workers and their families and other groups in vulnerable situations, particularly those acts
motivated by discrimination and other forms of intolerance”; and affirmed “determination to eliminate violenceagainst migrants, migrant workers and their families” calling on the adoption of “measures for preventing andaddressing effectively cases of such violence and to ensure that those individuals receive humane and respectfultreatment from States, regardless of their status” (para. 38 of the Declaration). In the same paragraph, theDeclaration contained an invitation with different recipients: first, an invitation to Member States “to take
immediate steps to incorporate into international crime prevention strategies and norms measures to prevent,prosecute and punish crimes involving violence against migrants, as well as violence associated with racism,
xenophobia and related forms of intolerance”; and, secondly, an invitation to the United Nations Commission
on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice “to consider this issue further in a comprehensive manner”.
The Doha Declaration, adopted by the Thirteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice in 2015 and endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 70/174, explicitly addressed
the issue. In paragraph 5, Member States reaffirmed their “commitment and strong political will in supportof effective, fair, humane, and accountable criminal justice systems and the institutions comprising them”, andencouraged “the effective participation and inclusion of all sectors of society, thus creating the conditions
needed to advance the wider United Nations agenda, while respecting fully the principles of sovereignty andterritorial integrity of States and recognizing the responsibility of Member States to uphold human dignity, allhuman rights and fundamental freedoms for all, in particular for those affected by crime and those who may
be in contact with the criminal justice system, including vulnerable members of society, regardless of their* Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Division for Treaty
Affairs, Organized Crime and Illicit Trafficking Branch. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do
not reflect the views of the United Nations.

83

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
status, who may be subject to multiple and aggravated forms of discrimination, and to prevent and counter
crime motivated by intolerance or discrimination of any kind”.
To that end, the Declaration enumerated a number of measures that Member States endeavour to take,such as: to conduct further research and gather data on crime victimization motivated by discrimination of
any kind and to exchange experiences in and information on effective laws and policies that can prevent suchcrimes, bring perpetrators to justice and provide support to victims (paragraph 5(p)); to consider providing
specialized training to criminal justice professionals to enhance capacities for recognizing, understanding,
suppressing and investigating hate crimes motivated by discrimination of any kind, to help engage effectively
with victim communities and to build public confidence and cooperation with criminal justice agencies(paragraph 5(q)); and to intensify national and international efforts to eliminate all forms of discrimination,
including racism, religious intolerance, xenophobia and gender-related discrimination by, inter alia, raisingawareness, developing educational materials and programmes, and considering, where appropriate, draftingand enforcing legislation against discrimination (paragraph5(r)).

II. “SETTING THE DEFINITIONAL FRAMEWORK”: DEFINING RELATEDCRIMES AND CONCEPTS UNDER DISCUSSION“Crimes motivated by intolerance or discrimination of any kind” are usually described for purposes of
convenience and in a generic manner as “hate crimes”. However, the term “hate crime” may be misleading.
Many crimes which are motivated by hatred are not categorized as hate crimes. Murders, for instance, areoften motivated by hatred, but they are not “hate crimes” unless the victim was chosen because of aprotected characteristic. Conversely, a crime where the perpetrator does not feel “hate” towards theparticular victim can still be considered a hate crime. Hate is a very specific and intense emotional state,
which may not properly describe most hate crimes.1
Hence, although there is inconsistent use of relevant terms in the aforementioned subsections of the Doha
Declaration, it is preferable to use the term “crimes motivated by intolerance/bias/discrimination of anykind”. This term, in its different variations, has a broader meaning than “hate crime” as a bias motive only
requires some form of prejudice on account of a personal characteristic. In any case, the term describes a
concept and does not define a criminal offence.
Two factors need to be considered to turn an ordinary offence — established under the criminal code ofthe legal jurisdiction in which it is committed — into a crime motivated by bias/intolerance: the motive of
the offender, who selects the victim because of his/her membership in a group; and the impact on victims
given that intolerance crimes are designed to intimidate them (or the victims’ community) on the basis of
their personal characteristics.

III. GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION—“PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS”
There is no global definition of the notion of crime motivated by intolerance and discrimination, and there
is no agreement, in particular, as to which characteristics of persons should be protected by specific legislationand policies. At the national level, the scope of the protected characteristics varies over time and among
countries. In most cases, it includes fundamental or universally protected characteristics such as race, ethnic
and religious identities, national origin. Frequently protected characteristics include gender, age, mental or
physical disability, sexual orientation.
Decisions about which characteristic to protect have an impact on the scope of application of related
criminalization provisions and the types of crimes that are classified as crimes motivated by intolerance anddiscrimination.

IV. DEFINING THE MOTIVE OF THE PERPETRATOR(S)The crucial mental element of the motivation of the offender may be defined through the use of the so
1

OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), “Hate Crime Laws. A Practical Guide”, 2009, pp. 16-17.

84

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
called “hostility” and “discrimination” models.
According to the “hostility model”,2 the offender should have committed the offence because of hostilityor hatred based on one of the protected characteristics of the targeted victims. Pursuant to the “discrimination
model”,3 the offender deliberately targets the victim because of a protected characteristic, but no actual
hatred or hostility is necessary to prove the offence.
In many cases, offenders leave clear indications of their motive (“message crimes”). Challenges, however,exist, where “bias motivation” is not always immediately apparent and may not be sufficient for an investigatorto classify an incident as a crime motivated by discrimination. In addition, many jurisdictions have specificcriminal laws that allow for the consideration of mixed motives, where an offence is committed wholly or
partly due to bias. It is common for legislation to be drafted broadly, in a way that does not exclude thepossibility of more than one motive, including bias.
Requiring that bias should be the sole motive may drastically limit the number of offences that could becharged as crimes motivated by bias or to which a relevant penalty enhancement might apply. Furthermore,
a law that does not directly address issues of mixed motive may produce varying interpretations by law
enforcement and the prosecutors. This could lead to significant differences in the number of crimes categorized
and prosecuted as crimes motivated by intolerance.

V. “RECOGNIZING RELATED CRIMES”: INDICATORS OF CRIMESMOTIVATED BY INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION
Circumstances that may be indicative of intolerance crimes include the following: the “race”, religion,
ethnicity/national origin, disability status, gender, or sexual orientation of the victim differs from that of theoffender; the victim is a member of a group that is overwhelmingly outnumbered by members of anothergroup in the area where the incident occurred; the victim is a member of a community that is concentrated
within particular areas and was attacked upon leaving that area; the incident occurred during an incursion
by members of a majority group into an area that is predominately populated by members of minorities(pattern reflecting the historical experience of pogroms, in which attacks were carried out on a minority
population that was largely confined to a particular district neighbourhood); the fact that the victim is amember of a minority who is attacked by a group from members of a different population group; and there
is historical animosity between the group of which the victim is a member and that of the offender.
Characteristics of a victim that may be indicators of intolerance crimes may include the following
scenarios: the victim is identifiable as “different” from the attackers and, often, from the majority community,
by such factors as appearance, dress, language or religion; the victim is a prominent figure, such as areligious leader, rights activist or public spokesperson, in a community that has faced ongoing discrimination;and the victim was in the company of or married to a member of a minority group.
The characteristics, behaviour and background of alleged offenders can also yield several potential
indicators of bias/prejudice. For example, statements, gestures or other behaviour before, during or after theincident displaying prejudice or bias against the group or community to which the target or victim belongs;
clothing, tattoos or insignia representative of particular extremist movements, e.g., the use of swastikas orother Nazi insignia or paramilitary style uniforms; the offender’s behaviour suggests possible membership ina hate organization; and the fact that the offender has a history of previous crimes with a similar modus
operandi and involving other victims from the same minority group or other minority groups.

2See, for example, Canada, Criminal Code 1985, section 718.2(a): “A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into
consideration the following principles:(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or
mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (i) evidence
that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex,age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor”.
3
As an example, see Greece, article 21 of Law No. 4356/2015. The provision establishes an aggravated form of hate crime
without the condition of the subjective element of the motivation of the offender. It is sufficient that the victim was targetedbecause of protected characteristics. The objective is to expand the scope of application of the criminalization provision.

85

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
Indicators can also be identified in attacks on property that suggest bias motivations. Such indicators may
include the following: the property targeted has religious or other symbolic importance for a particularcommunity, such as a church or a synagogue, a cemetery, or a monument commemorating the dead orcelebrating historical figures from the community; the property targeted is a centre of community life—suchas a school, social club or shop—for a particular group; such property is different from surrounding property
because it is owned or occupied by members of a particular community; and the property has been the objectof previous similar attacks.
Indicators that an organized group was involved may involve the following scenarios: objects or items
that represent the work of organized hate groups were observed or left at the scene of the incident; anorganized hate group made recent statements threatening the group that was targeted or claimed
responsibility for the crime afterwards; the incident coincided with a date of particular significance to hategroups; and the incident occurred during or shortly after an event sponsored by a hate group or after a hategroup was campaigning or was otherwise active.
Previous crimes of same nature or incidents may also be of relevance, especially where: previous similar
incidents have occurred in the same area in which members of the same group were targeted; the victim or
victims had received previous harassing or threatening mail or telephone calls based on membership in theirgroup; and a previous incident or crime was reported that may have sparked a retaliatory bias crime against
members of the group presumed responsible.
The nature of the violence may further be used as an indicator of intolerance crimes, especially where:
the incident involved extreme or unusual violence, or expressly degrading and humiliating treatment,
including sexual abuse of victims in homophobic crimes; the violence was carried out in a public place or ina form intended to make a public impact, such as through video recording by perpetrators; or the violence
involved mutilation in which racist symbols were cut or burned onto victim’s bodies, or the damage toproperty included an express “message”, through the use of symbols.

VI. THE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK
A. United Nations
The United Nations human rights framework requires States to guarantee equal rights and the equal
protection of laws and to prevent discrimination. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides theframework for the principles of equal rights and non-discrimination, and was the first international instrument
to affirm that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as “race”, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national orsocial origin, property, birth or other status”.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) expands on these principles throughspecific provisions. In particular, article 2 of the ICCPR4 sets forth requirements on the non-discrimination
principle similar to those found in the Universal Declaration, while article 265 goes into more detail on
equality before the law, equal protection of the law and protection from discrimination.
The General Assembly, in its resolutions on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has highlighted
the need for States to effectively protect the right to life of all persons, and to carry out prompt, exhaustiveand impartial investigations into all killings, including those targeted at specific groups of persons.6
A key legally binding international instrument is the International Convention on the Elimination of all
4
Article 2. 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its
territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
5
Article 26. All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of thelaw. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against
discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,property, birth or other status.
6
See, for example, General Assembly resolution 71/198.

86

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), operating
under article 8 of the Convention, is a body of independent experts that monitors the implementation of theInternational Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. All States parties are
obliged to submit regular reports to the Committee on how the rights are being implemented. States must
report initially one year after acceding to the Convention and then every two years. The Committee examines
each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the State party in the form of “concluding
observations”. In addition to the reporting procedure, the Convention establishes three other mechanisms
through which the Committee performs its monitoring functions: the warming procedure, the examinationof inter-State complaints and the examination of individual complaints. The Committee meets in Geneva andnormally holds three sessions per year consisting of three-four-three weeks per year. The Committee also
publishes its interpretation of the content of human rights provisions, known as general recommendations(or general comments) on thematic issues and organizes thematic discussions.
The responsibility of criminal justice systems in preventing and countering crime motivated by intolerance
or discrimination has been addressed by both the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination andthe Human Rights Committee in the concluding observations and recommendations issued in response toregular reports from States. In its opinion concerning the case Mahali Dawas and Yousef Shava v. Denmark,the CERD held that, when investigating and prosecuting crimes with a potential bias motivation, theprosecution had a duty to ensure that racist motivation was fully investigated through the criminal
proceedings.7
With the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action at the World Conference against
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in 2001, the international community
affirmed its commitment to eradicate racism and racial discrimination. The Durban Declaration and
Programme of Action constituted the first comprehensive, victim-centred and action-oriented document inthis area, and it outlines concrete measures to address these issues, including measures directly relevant tothe criminal justice system. The outcome document of the Durban Review Conference, held in 2009, assessed
the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and highlighted future requirements
for action. Those two documents underline the importance of the criminal justice system in combating
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.8
B. Council of Europe
The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the European Convention on Human Rights, andparticularly its article 14 which contains the principle of non-discrimination, in conjunction with articles 2, 3,
9 and 13 (see below the relevant jurisprudence), when considering Member States’ obligations in relation tocrimes based on bias motives.
Another normative instrument which is of relevance in this regional framework is the Additional Protocol
to the European Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalization of acts of a racist and xenophobic
nature committed through computer systems (see below).9
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) is a human rights monitoring bodywhich specializes in questions relating to the fight against racism, discrimination (on grounds of “race”,
ethnic/national origin, colour, citizenship, religion, language, sexual orientation and gender identity),
xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance. Set up on 13 June 2002. In its country monitoring work, ECRI
analyses the situation in each of the Member States and makes recommendations for dealing with any
problems of racism and intolerance identified there. A contact visit is organized before the preparation ofeach new country report in order to obtain as comprehensive a picture as possible of the situation in theMember State concerned.
C. European Union
The European Union (EU) Framework Decision on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism
7

CERD/C/80/D/46/2009.
See A/CONF.189/12 and Corr.1, chap. I and A/CONF.211/8, chap. I.
9ETS No.189. Entered into force on 1 March 2006. So far, 32 States, including non-Members of the Council of Europe, have
ratified or acceded to the Protocol.
8

87

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law of 28 November 200810 requests all EU Member States to review
their legislation and ensure compliance with the decision. The FD is intended to harmonize criminal law
across the EU and to ensure that states respond with effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for
racist and xenophobic crimes.
The Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishingminimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA11 identifies hate crime victims as particularly at risk of secondary or
repeat victimization.
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), based in Vienna, provides institutions andauthorities of the EU and its Member States with assistance and expertise relating to fundamental rights.
FRA collects and publishes data and information on issues of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance
through its European Information Network on Racism and Xenophobia (RAXEN) National Focal Points(NFPs) covering all EU Member States.
Racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance are core themes covered by FRA’s work and, in linewith its founding regulation, fall under the agency’s permanent mandate. Over the years, FRA has gatheredevidence on the situation of hate crime victims from their perspective as well as on some of the barriers andchallenges criminal justice professionals face. In 2013, the Council conclusions on combating hate crime in theEuropean Union invited FRA to work together with Member States to facilitate the exchange of promising
practices and assist the Member States at their request in their efforts to develop effective methods toencourage reporting and ensure proper recording of hate crimes. In response, FRA established a Working
Party on Improving Reporting and Recording of Hate Crime. This working party produced, in 2016, an online
Compendium of illustrative practices for preventing and combating hate crime across the EU.12
D. OSCEIn No. 9/2009 OSCE Ministerial Council Decision on “Combating Hate Crimes”, participating Statescommitted themselves to, inter alia, collect, and make public, data on hate crimes; enact, where appropriate,
specific and tailored legislation to combat hate crimes; take appropriate measures to encourage victims toreport hate crimes; develop professional training and capacity-building activities for law enforcement,
prosecution and judicial officials dealing with hate crimes; and promptly investigate hate crimes, and ensurethat the motives of those convicted of hate crimes are acknowledged and publicly condemned by therelevant authorities and the political leadership.
The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) supports government officials
in designing and developing monitoring mechanisms and data collection on hate crime. It further helps
participating States design and draft legislation that effectively addresses hate crimes and provides training
to build the capacity of participating States’ criminal justice systems to address effectively hate crimes.
ODIHR also supports participating States that have committed themselves to promoting educational
programmes which counter intolerance.
In terms of hate crime reporting, ODIHR releases an annual basis hate crime reports compiling informationfrom participating States, civil society organizations and inter-governmental organizations on hate crimes.13
In 2014, the ODIHR launched an accompanying website to support participating States in combating hatecrime.

VII. THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK: DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE AND
EFFECTIVE LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES
Article 4 (a) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination14
10

OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, pp. 55–58.
OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57–73.
12https://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/hate-crime/compendium-practices.
13
See http://hatecrime.osce.org/.
14
Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965; entered
1188

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
provides that States parties “shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on
racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement
to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of
any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof”.
In its general recommendation No. 15 on article 4 of the Convention, the CERD specified that States are
required to penalize four categories of misconduct: (a) Dissemination of ideas based upon racial superiority
or hatred; (b) Incitement to racial hatred; (c) Acts of violence against any race or group of persons of anothercolour or ethnic origin; and (d) Incitement to such acts. The Committee also emphasized that “the provisionsof article 4 are of a mandatory character. To satisfy these obligations, States parties have not only to enact
appropriate legislation but also to ensure that it is effectively enforced”.
Criminal justice responses to crimes motivated by intolerance vary from country to country. When it
comes to criminalization of such crimes, there may be several types of approaches. One of them is the socalled “substantive offence” approach, whereby the law criminalizes a separate offence of intolerance crimethat includes the bias motive as an integral/constituent element of the legal definition of the offence. Usually,
the separate offence carries a higher penalty than the same act without the bias motive.15
A second model of a “substantive offence” approach focuses on that type of provision which defines thecrime as a form of violence or threats of serious injury against a group of people or an individual on the basisof a protected characteristic.16
Another approach is the “penalty enhancement” approach, whereby the law does not recognize the bias
motive as the constituent element of the offence, but as an aggravating factor which increases the penalty
for a “base offence” such as murder, sexual violence, assault, on the ground that the crime is committed withsuch motive. The penalty enhancement approach also includes cases where the law does not explicitly referto bias motive as an aggravating sentencing factor, but, through the use of general sentencing principles,
including the proportionality principle, a more severe penalty may be imposed on crimes motivated byintolerance or discrimination.
In jurisdictions where the law specifically refers to such crimes, whether from a “substantive offence”
approach or “penalty enhancement” approach, other legal issues may vary and include: whether an offence
committed against persons, property or both all constitute substantive offences or aggravating factors; whichcharacteristics should be protected (e.g. race, nationality, religion, gender, political affiliation, ideology,
disability); and which standard of proof should be required for the bias elements.
Further, in jurisdictions where neither a “substantive offence” approach nor a “penalty enhancement”
approach is taken, other measures may be taken to ensure that a proportionate penalty is imposed, forexample, by relying on the sentencing discretion of the judge.
When penalty enhancements are used to punish crimes motivated by intolerance, the question of bias
motive is usually considered when the offender is sentenced. The penalty enhancement can only be applied
if a bias motivation has been substantiated before the court in the fact-finding phase of the court proceedings.
The existence of legislation as an appropriate response to crimes motivated by intolerance or discrimination
is important for a number of reasons. It is, first of all, a symbolic acknowledgement to potential victims,
perpetrators and wider society that crimes motivated by bias are taken seriously. Further, the legislative
process encourages discussion of the issue, which, in turn, increases public awareness.

into force on 4 January 1969.
15
See, for example, United Kingdom: Article 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act (1998): An offence is racially or religiously
aggravated if, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards
the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group.
16
See, for example, Poland: Criminal Code (1997) Art. 119. § 1. Whoever uses violence or makes unlawful threat towards a groupof person or a particular individual because or their national, ethnic, political or religious affiliation, or because of their lack ofreligious beliefs, shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for a term of between 3 months and 5 years.

89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
Clear and precise legislation clarifies terminological issues, thus ensuring legal certainty and minimizing
chances for abuses. Moreover, it mandates what law enforcement authorities consider as motive of theoffender, as well as other constituent elements of the offences and, thus, guide, their action; defines theevidentiary requirements that have to be fulfilled in a given case; enables victims to support their case; and,
finally, facilitates the collection of more accurate data on the basis of defined criteria.

VIII. EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS
A. Standard of Proof, Challenges and Related Considerations
Experience at the national level shows that there is a number of challenges particularly relevant to theinvestigation, prosecution and adjudication of cases involving intolerance crimes. As motivation is a subjective
element, it is difficult to collect evidence and prove the bias elements if the offender denies the commission
upon bias motives or admits to have had bias motives but states that there were other decisive ones. If law
enforcement authorities overlook evidence of bias motivation, it is unlikely that it will be identified later inthe criminal justice process, and relevant criminal laws cannot be implemented effectively. Identifying andrecording bias motivation is also essential for prevention purposes, a core police function.
In order to suppress crimes motivated by intolerance or discrimination effectively, it is necessary forcriminal justice authorities to seek adequate evidence that would enable them to prove the offender’sintolerant or discriminatory motives. Moreover, it is essential for them to take steps to build public confidencewith the victims and victim communities so as to facilitate their cooperation. It is also crucial to takepractical measures to encourage the victims and victim communities to report to and cooperate with criminal
justice authorities, which include witness protection measures and other measures to provide them withproper assistance in a broader sense (e.g. access to victim support services).
In cases where the bias motivation is not obvious, bias indicators are a useful tool. Bias indicators can help
guide investigators and prosecutors through the factors that normally point towards a bias motive. The
presence of one or more of these indicators suggests the commission of intolerance crimes and should resultin further investigation into motive. Bias indicators provide objective criteria by which probable motives canbe discerned, but do not necessarily prove that an offender’s actions were motivated by bias. Many of themcan be used to build circumstantial evidence of the motive behind the offence (see above, under section V).
A decision to flag a case as a bias crime can be taken at different stages by either the police or theprosecution. Bias indicators are, therefore, relevant both at the crime scene and when reviewing evidence ofa crime.
B. The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
As the European Court of Human Rights has consistently held, article 14 of the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR)17 imposes a positive duty on state authorities to render visible the bias motivation ofa crime. Article 14 is read as obliging States to render visible bias motives underlying criminal offences. Overtime, the Court has expanded this line of jurisprudence to cover actions of private parties, other forms ofharm, a variety of bias motives and, finally, bias motives by association.
As stated in the case Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria,18 while States do not need to pass specific hate crime
legislation, the criminal justice system must be able to identify, recognize and appropriately punish racistmotivated crime. The Court held that the lack of direct hate crime laws did not hinder the ability of theauthorities to pursue the racist motivation during the criminal process, and that the general legal framework
allowed for an appropriate and enhanced punishment for these types of crimes. The Court’s decision
underscored that, although States are not required to have specific hate crime laws, crimes that are
particularly egregious, including those causing increased harm to individuals and society, such as hatecrimes, require proportionate punishment under the law. Furthermore, the Court also examined the role ofauthorities in uncovering a racist motivation stating that in cases of deprivation of life and ill-treatment, State
17“Prohibition of discrimination”: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured
without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
18
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 26 July 2007.

90

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
authorities have the duty to conduct effective and prompt investigations without discrimination; and that any
racist or anti-religious motivation must also be effectively and promptly investigated under reasonablecircumstances.19
In the case Nachova v. Bulgaria,20 the Court, sitting in plenary session as a Grand Chamber and departingfrom the Chamber’s approach, did not consider that the authorities’ alleged failure to carry out an effective
investigation into the alleged racist motive for the killing should shift the burden of proof to the respondent
Government with regard to the alleged violation of article 14, taken in conjunction with the substantive
aspect of article 2 (right to life).21
However, the Court derived from article 14 of the European Convention a positive duty for Stateauthorities to investigate and unmask the bias motivation of an offence, if there are indications of its existence.
In particular, the Court concluded that the investigator and the prosecutors involved in the case had had
before them plausible information sufficient to alert them to the need to carry out an initial verification and,depending on the outcome, an investigation into possible racist overtones in the events that had led to thedeath of the two men. Nevertheless, according to the Court, they had done nothing to verify the neighbour’sstatement, or the reasons it had been considered necessary to use such a degree of force. They had
disregarded relevant facts and terminated the investigation. It followed that, from a procedural point of view,
the authorities had failed in their duty under article 14, taken together with article 2, to take all possible steps
to investigate whether or not discrimination may have played a role in the events.
In the case Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece,22 the Court stated that, when investigating violent incidents,
state authorities have the additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to
19
The applicants alleged that the State had failed in its obligation to conduct an effective and prompt investigation into thedeath of a Roma man, and that the lack of legislation for racially motivated murder failed to provide adequate legal protection
against such crimes. According to the facts of the case, the police had identified the alleged assailants in the death of a Romaman, one of whom directly admitted the racial motivation for the crime. However, the police failed to conduct the necessary
investigative proceedings within the statute of limitations for prosecutions against most of the suspects. The Court held thatthe domestic authorities had failed to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into the incident, especially “considering
the racial motives of the attack and the need to maintain the confidence of minorities in the ability of the authorities to protect
them from the threat of racial violence”. Consequently, the Court found that the State was in breach of the procedural aspectof the right to life (article 2) in connection with the principle of non-discrimination (article 14) because the authorities failed
to make the required distinction from other, non-racially motivated offences, which, in turn, constitutes unjustified treatment
irreconcilable with article 14.
20
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 6 July 2005. According to the facts of the case, two men of Roma origin
were conscripts serving compulsory military service in an army division dealing with the construction of apartments. They
were in detention for repeated absences without leave when they escaped. Neither of the two was armed. The military police
officers who found them had instructions to arrest the fugitives using all the means and methods dictated by the circumstances.
Having noticed the military vehicle in front of their house, the fugitives tried to escape. While running away they were shotafter a warning to stop. Both men died on their way to hospital. One neighbour claimed that several of the policemen had beenshooting and that at one stage, one military police officer had pointed his gun at him in a brutal manner and had insulted him
saying “You damn Gypsies”.
21
Nevertheless, in the subsequent case Makhashevy v. The Russian Federation (Judgment of the European Court of Human
Rights, 31 July 2012), the applicants’ (ethnic Chechens) allegations under article 14 of the Convention were supported bywitness statements and documents the contents of which were not contested by the Government. The Court found that theevidence was sufficient to prove that there were racial motives behind the police officers’ actions. Further, the Court noted that
the Government did not submit any explanation for the applicants’ allegation that their detention by the police was raciallymotivated other than making a general statement to the effect that it was unsubstantiated. The Court further noted that, unlikein the Nachova case, no explanations were given to the reasons necessitating the authorities’ intervention and the use of force
against the applicants. The Court considered that the applicants made a prima facie case that their arrest and detention in
the police station were not racially neutral. The Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints were unsubstantiated.
However, such general reference, in the absence of any explanation on the part of the authorities, was found by the Court to be
insufficient to discharge them from the obligation requiring them to disprove an arguable allegation of discrimination (shifting of
the burden of proof) (para. 179 of the decision of the Court).
22
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 13 December 2005. In the applicants’ (Greek nationals belonging to
the Roma ethnic group) case, despite the plausible information available to the authorities that the alleged assaults by police
officers during investigation had been racially motivated, there was no evidence that they carried out any examination into thequestion, nor verification of statements and inquiries; nor, further, any investigation on how the police officers were carrying out
their duties when dealing with ethnic minority groups.

91

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice might have played a role in the events. Admittedly,
proving racial motivation would often be extremely difficult in practice. The authorities have to do what isreasonable in the circumstances to collect and secure the evidence, explore all practical means of discovering
the truth and deliver fully reasoned, impartial and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts thatmight indicate racist motives. The Court found a violation of article 14, taken together with article 3, in thatthe authorities failed in their duty to take all possible steps to investigate whether or not discrimination
might have played a role in the events at issue.
In the case Secic v. Croatia,23 the Court extended the same reasoning to violations of the investigative
procedural aspect of the right to be free from ill-treatment (article 3) in connection with article 14 of theConvention. The Court held that state authorities have the duty, when investigating violent incidents, “to takeall reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice
may have played a role in the events. Failing to do so and treating racially induced violence and brutality on
an equal footing with cases that have non-racist overtones would be to turn a blind eye to the specific natureof acts that are particularly destructive of fundamental rights.” In doing so, prosecution and investigation
authorities must be impartial in their assessment of the evidence before them.24
The failure of authorities to exercise their positive duty to ascertain the bias motivation in specificcircumstances was further highlighted in two other cases: first, in the case of Cobzaru v. Romania,25 theCourt noted that the applicant did not refer to any specific facts in order to substantiate his claim that theviolence he sustained was racially motivated. Instead, he argued that his allegation should be evaluatedwithin the context of documented and repeated failure by the Romanian authorities to remedy instances ofanti-Roma violence and to provide redress for discrimination. However, the expression of concern by variousorganizations about the numerous allegations of violence against Roma by law enforcement officers and therepeated failure of the national authorities to remedy the situation and provide redress for discrimination did
not suffice to allow the Court to consider that it had been established that racist attitudes played a role in
the applicant’s ill-treatment. The Court further observed that the numerous anti-Roma incidents which often
involved State agents following the fall of the communist regime in 1990, and other documented evidence ofrepeated failure by the authorities to remedy instances of such violence were known to the public at large,
as they were regularly covered by the media. It appeared from the evidence submitted by the applicant that
all those incidents had been officially brought to the attention of the authorities and that, as a result, various
programmes had been set up to eradicate such discrimination. However, there was no attempt on the partof the prosecutors to verify the behaviour of the police officers involved in the violence, ascertaining, forinstance, whether they had been involved in the past in similar incidents or whether they had been accusedof displaying anti-Roma sentiment. The Court concluded that the failure of the law enforcement agents toinvestigate possible racial motives in the applicant’s ill-treatment combined with their attitude during theinvestigation constituted discrimination in violation of article 14 taken in conjunction with articles 3 and 13(right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
Second, in the case Turan Cakir v. Belgium,26 the Court considered that the general context at therelevant time, referred to by the applicant (Belgian citizen of Turkish origin), was not sufficient to explain
the allegedly racist attitude of the police officers during the arrest. However, the Belgian authorities failed totake all the necessary measures to ascertain whether discriminatory conduct could have played a role in theevents in question. Hence, the Court concluded that there was violation of article 14 taken in conjunction with
23

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 31 May 2007. The applicant was a Roma man who was severely beaten
by two individuals. Despite several leads, police failed to take reasonable investigative measures to find the perpetrators andbring them to justice.
24
Stoica v. Romania, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 4 March 2008. In that case, where the alleged illtreatment by police of a 14-year-old Roma boy left him with permanent disabilities, the Court found that the militaryprosecutors had premised their findings on the statements of the police officials, who had reasons to wish to exoneratethemselves and their colleagues from any liability. At the same time, the prosecutors had dismissed all statements by villagers,
all of whom were of Romani ethnicity, on the grounds of an alleged bias in favour of the applicant. Additionally, the prosecutors
had ignored statements by police officials that the villagers’ behaviour was “purely Gypsy”, a statement that in the eyes of the
Court demonstrated the stereotypical views of the police. The Court held that there was a breach of the prohibition of inhumanand degrading treatment (article 3 of the Convention) in conjunction with the prohibition of discrimination (article 14).
25
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 26 July 2007.
26
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 10 March 2009.

92

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
article 3 of the Convention.
A piecemeal departure from the—described above—consistency of the jurisprudence of the European
Court of Human Rights was noted in the case Mižigárová v. Slovakia.27 In that case, the Court addressed thequestion whether independent evidence of a systemic problem could be deemed sufficient to alert authorities
to the possible existence of racist motives in the absence of any other evidence. The Court said it would not
exclude such possibility in a particular case in respect of persons of Roma origin. In the instant case, however,it was not persuaded that “the objective evidence is sufficiently strong in itself to suggest the existence of a
racist motive”. As a result, the Court did not find a procedural violation of article 14 in conjunction witharticle 2 (also dissenting opinion). For the applicant, the fact that her husband was of Roma origin, coupledwith the legacy of widespread and systematic abuse of Roma in police custody, was enough to create an
obligation to investigate possible racist motives behind his death.
In the specific context of anti-religious bias, the Court has established very interesting and consistentjurisprudence. In the case Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia,28
the Court found that the refusal of the police to intervene promptly was largely due to the applicants’religious convictions. The comments and attitudes of the officials alerted about the attack or subsequently
instructed to conduct the investigation were not compatible with the principle of equality before the law. No
justification for that discriminatory treatment had been put forward by the Government. The authorities hadenabled the instigator of the attacks to continue to stir up hatred through the media and to pursue acts ofreligiously motivated violence, accompanied by his supporters, while alleging that they enjoyed the unofficial
support of the authorities. This suggested possible complicity on the part of State representatives.
Consequently, the Court concluded that there was violation of article 14 in conjunction with articles 3 and 9(freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the Convention.
In the case Milanovic v. Serbia,29 the Court extended the same principles concerning crimes motivated by
racism to crimes motivated by an anti-religious bias. The Court made clear that in crimes involving bias on
the grounds of race or religion, investigators and prosecutors should recognize and give additional weight tothe bias element of crimes and take all reasonable steps to collect evidence of motive and bring offenders tojustice. Prosecutors must, therefore, assess the evidence in a fair and unbiased manner and ensure thatwitness evidence is not dismissed on the basis of stereotypes. Where investigators appear to have appliedstereotypes, prosecutors must be aware of the responsibility to challenge these and to question whether theinvestigation was thorough and effective.
In the case Begheluri and Others v. Georgia,30 the Court found a violation of article 14 in conjunction witharticles 3 and 9. Having regard to all available materials, the Court concluded that the various forms ofviolence directed against the applicants either by State officials or private individuals had been motivated bya bigoted attitude towards the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses; and that the same discriminatory state ofmind had been at the core of the relevant public authorities’ failure to investigate the incidents of religiously
motivated violence in an effective manner.
27

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 14 December 2010. The victim, a young man of Roma origin apprehended
on suspicion of bicycle theft, ended up dead four days after he was shot in the abdomen during police interrogation. The police
officer was off-duty and had previous encounters with the victim.
28
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 3 May 2007. The case concerned an incident in October 1999 in which
a fanatical group of Orthodox believers led by a defrocked priest attacked a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The groupsurrounded and entered a theatre in which 120 members of the congregation were gathered. Although some of the members
managed to escape, 60 others, including women and children, were violently assaulted by the attackers.
29
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 14 December 2010. The applicant, a member of the Vaishnava Hindu, orHare Krishna, religious community, was subjected to numerous physical attacks around the time of major Serbian Orthodox
religious holidays. The State was held in breach of the procedural aspect of article 3 (prevention of ill-treatment) in conjunction
with article 14 for failing to investigate effectively and promptly the religious bias motivation of the crimes. In particular, theCourt noted that the police failed to take the victim’s case seriously, even though there was a pattern of targeting minorities
around religious holidays. Instead, the police referred to the victim’s religion and “strange appearance”, which suggested
that any investigative steps were pro forma and inadequately addressed the seriousness of the anti-religious bias motivation
presented in the case.
30
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 7 October 2014. The case concerned 99 Georgian nationals and Jehova’s
Witnesses, who alleged having been subjected to large-scale religiously motivated violence in the years 2000-2001.

93

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
A significant decision of the European Court is particularly related to circumstances involving bias basedon homophobia. In the case of Identoba and others v. Georgia,31 the Court first noted that the question ofwhether or not some of the applicants sustained physical injuries of certain gravity became less relevant.
Instead, all applicants became the target of hate speech and aggressive behaviour and that was not disputedby the Government. Given that the applicants were surrounded by an angry mob that outnumbered themand was uttering death threats and randomly resorting to physical assaults, demonstrating the reality of thethreats, and that a clearly distinguishable homophobic bias played the role of an aggravating factor, thesituation was already one of intense fear and anxiety. The aim of that verbal—and sporadically physical—
abuse was evidently to frighten the applicants so that they would desist from their public expression of
support for the LGBT community. In contrast to the State’s positive obligation to provide the peacefuldemonstrators with heightened protection from attacks by private individuals, the Court noted the limited
number of police patrol officers initially present at the demonstration distanced themselves without any priorwarning from the scene when the verbal attacks started, thus allowing the tension to degenerate into
physical violence. By the time the police officers finally decided to step in, the applicants and other participantsof the march had already been bullied, insulted or even assaulted. Furthermore, instead of focusing on
restraining the most aggressive counterdemonstrators with the aim of allowing the peaceful procession toproceed, the belated police intervention shifted onto the arrest and evacuation of some of the applicants, thevery victims whom they had been called to protect. The Court considered that the domestic authorities
failed to provide adequate protection to the thirteen individual applicants from the bias-motivated attacks.
Moreover, the Court considered that it was essential for the relevant domestic authorities to conduct theinvestigation in that specific context, taking all reasonable steps with the aim of unmasking the role ofpossible homophobic motives for the events in question. The necessity of conducting a meaningful inquiry
into the discrimination behind the attack on the march was indispensable given, on the one hand, the hostility
against the LGBT community and, on the other, in the light of the clearly homophobic hate speech utteredby the assailants during the incident. The Court considered that without such a strict approach from thelaw‑enforcement authorities, prejudice-motivated crimes would unavoidably be treated on an equal footingwith ordinary cases without such overtones, and the resultant indifference would be tantamount to official
acquiescence to or even connivance with hate crimes. The Court accordingly considered that the domestic
authorities failed to conduct a proper investigation of the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment. Thus, there
was violation of article 3 taken in conjunction with article 14 of the Convention.

IX. WORKING WITH VICTIMS AND THE CHALLENGE OF UNDER-REPORTING
Accurate and reliable data are essential for effective action against crime motivated by intolerance. Welldesigned mechanisms to record and compile data enable law-enforcement agencies to gather intelligence
about local intolerance crime patterns, assist in the allocation of resources, and support more effective
investigation of specific types of cases. Policymakers can then rely on this information to make sounddecisions and to communicate with affected communities and the wider public about the scale of intolerance
crimes and responses to them.32
The police provide the first law-enforcement response to intolerance crimes and the information theycollect comprises the backbone of official crime data in this field. However, despite efforts by police and othergovernment agencies, official statistics generally understate the frequency of intolerance crimes.33 This is31

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 12 May 2015. The historical background of the case was as follows: During
the clashes between the participants of a march conducted to mark the International Day Against Homophobia, including
the thirteen individual applicants, and representatives of the two religious groups, the latter were particularly insulting in
the language used. The homophobic connotation of the counter-demonstrators’ speech was also evident in the acts of scornful
destruction and ripping of LGBT flags and posters. In addition to those acts, there were also verbal attacks, followed by actual
physical assaults on some of the applicants.
32
OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), “Hate Crime Data Collection and Monitoring
Mechanisms. A Practical Guide”, 2014, p. 11.
33
Of the 19 EU Member States that publish data on recorded hate crime, only 15 disaggregate these data by different bias
motivations. Some States publish specific reports on hate crime, providing information on the circumstances of the offences,which population groups are most at risk of suffering violent offences, and levels of satisfaction with the police’s response.
Publishing and disseminating specific reports on hate crime improves transparency and contributes to combating hate crime
effectively, including by raising awareness of the phenomenon. See European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), “Hate94171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
because official reporting relies on victims coming forward to report incidents and accurate recording by
police officers.
Victims may not report crimes motivated by bias because of fear of re-victimization or retaliation by
perpetrators; feelings of humiliation or shame about being victimized; uncertainty about how/where toreport the incident or how reporting will help them; lack of confidence that law-enforcement agencies will
be able to help or will pursue their case seriously or effectively; language barriers; fear of being deported (onthe part of undocumented people); for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people, fear of having
their identity or status exposed; or because the victim does not consider the incident to have been a criminal
act.
From the perspective of law enforcement officers and prosecutors, crimes motivated by bias might beunder-recorded because of lack of understanding of what constitutes a crime motivated by bias; lack oftraining in how to deal with and interview victims of related crimes; inadequate recognition of the different
victim groups that may be targeted; absence of policy guidance on how to report relevant crimes; use ofreporting forms that do not include specific spaces to report possible crimes motivated by bias; failure of
witnesses to come forward; lack of interest by prosecutors in handling pertinent crime cases; or biases heldby some portion of the law-enforcement establishment.
Focusing on victim protection challenges, it should be noted that, unlike victims of other criminal acts,
hate crime victims are selected on the basis of what they represent rather than who they are. The victim istargeted because of his or her membership in a group. As such, intolerance crimes convey the message toboth the victim and to their group that they are not welcome, and they are not safe. This wider impact
makes intolerance crimes more serious than the same crime without the bias motive.34
Victims of bias-motivated offences are often particularly vulnerable, and therefore reluctant to initiate
legal proceedings. Evidence shows that, compared to victims of other types of crime, they often face higher
levels of protracted suffering and of negative health outcomes, including post-traumatic stress disorder.
Court mechanisms and procedures are often not accessible or sensitive to the needs of groups facing
discrimination or do not ensure the fair and timely processing of cases. Access to justice is often limited,
owing to a lack of access to free legal aid or court support and interpretation services, or to potential
beneficiaries being unaware of the availability of such services. Obstacles faced by victims in claiming theirrights and participating in criminal proceedings often result from a combination of inequalities and biases atlegal, institutional, structural, socioeconomic and cultural levels.
Against this background, victim-oriented protective measures may include, inter alia, measures to provide
assistance and protection to victims in particular in cases of threat of retaliation or intimidation; proceduresto provide access to compensation and restitution; and evidentiary rules to permit witness protection
testimony to be given in a manner that ensures the safety of the witness.
Victimization surveys can also provide useful information about victims’ perceptions of many aspects ofcrimes motivated by bias. They can also shed light on the “dark figures” of relevant crimes to further
understand victim experiences, trends and emerging issues. If resources allow, the following are among thetypes of information that can be gathered in victimization surveys: the level of victim satisfaction with thepolice response; the level of concern about crimes motivated by bias in general;35reasons for reporting or notreporting to the police;36 the location of the crime;37 whether the respondent has witnessed a relevant crime
Crime Recording and Data Collection Practice Across the EU” (2018), p. 11.
34
OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), “Prosecuting Hate Crimes. A Practical Guide”, 2014, p.
16.
35
For example, respondents can be asked if they think that such crimes are a significant problem, and how worried they areabout being victims.
36
For instance, victims may report offences in order to stop re-offending, or may not report because they believe that the police
would not take action against the offender.
37
This information can be used to determine if crimes motivated by bias are more under-reported in some local areas than inothers; this may point to weaknesses in particular police administrations or prosecution services. Localized data are especiallyvaluable where policy-making powers are devolved to the regional and local levels.

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
or if a family member has been a victim; and victim demographics, including ethnicity, age and gender.38
Other promising practices to improve the treatment of victims of crime motivated by intolerance anddiscrimination and increase their trust in the authorities include measures such as the establishment of tollfree helplines to obtain rapid police assistance, improving the enforcement of protection orders, providing
access to shelters, providing free psychosocial and legal assistance, conducting awareness-raising campaigns,
and developing user-friendly reporting tools and structures.
An adequate legal basis is also crucial for ensuring that victims have access to justice and can obtainassistance, protection and compensation. The possibility for third parties, such as civil society organizations,to initiate proceedings on behalf of victims should be explored. It is important to include victim organizations
and representation from marginalized communities when designing responses and programmes.39

X. SPECIFIC THEMES OF RELEVANCE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
A. Combating Bias Violence against Migrants
Violence against migrants, migrant workers and their families can result from racism, discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance emanating from private or state actors in transit and destination countries.
In recent years, xenophobia has been on the rise in many parts of the world. Anti-immigrant rhetoric isincreasing, as newcomers are blamed for political, economic, and societal ills. Xenophobia can contribute toa range of difficulties for refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants, thus encouraging policies which undermine
access to asylum and deprive refugees and asylum-seekers of basic human rights guarantees.
Lack of understanding can aggravate prejudices between migrants and non-migrants, particularly during
times of economic hardship, tensions can increase as competition (or perceived competition) for social goods
including jobs, houses and welfare may increase. As tensions take on racist, discriminatory or xenophobic
dimensions, violence can result, impacting migrants more than other groups. In some cases, racism,discrimination and xenophobia may lead to intolerance crimes, i.e. criminal acts motivated by bias or prejudice
towards particular groups of people like migrants.40
Intolerance crimes targeting refugees, asylum seekers and migrants is a global phenomenon, not limited
to any one country or region of the world. Although some States are taking steps to address violent acts andthe xenophobic climate in which they occur, significant gaps remain, and additional action is necessary. As
UNHCR has noted in its December 2009 Guidance Note on “Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance Through a Strategic Approach”,41 while “concerted efforts are required from all concerned
parties—States, the United Nations, and other international and regional organizations, as well as NGOs andcommunity groups, to address these issues,” ultimately “the success of any such effort will be directly
proportional to the political will of States to put in place systems for the protection of basic rights andmechanisms for ensuring their effective implementation”.
Though there are numerous aspects to comprehensive responses to intolerance crimes, one particularchallenge is the problem of underreporting. In order to respond to individual incidents, understand the natureand frequency of hate crime and develop sound public policy, governments must be aware of their occurrence.
Underreporting of crimes is a particular difficulty and remains one of the principal problems, especiallyamong refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants.
Member States should make particular efforts to ensure that intolerance crimes are reported to theappropriate authorities so that action can be taken to hold the perpetrators responsible in individual cases
and to better measure the effectiveness of strategic responses over time. Those efforts may include action
38

As victim surveys are anonymous, this approach will allow policymakers to ascertain if victim experiences are affected byother dimensions of their identity. For example, questions on demographics can reveal whether men or women are more likely
to report crimes, or if older victims of relevant crimes experience a more significant psychological impact than younger victims.
39
E/CN.15/2019/6, para. 80.
40
See “Combating violence against migrants. Criminal justice measures to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish violenceagainst migrants, migrant workers and their families and to protect victims”, UNODC 2015, p. 3.
41
Available at https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b30931d2.pdf.

96171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
such as speaking out publicly against incidents, responding to instances of abuse by law enforcement officials
against victims of intolerance crimes, developing systems of third-party reporting and enhancing outreach tobodies like the UNHCR and civil society groups that have regular and direct contact with intolerance crime
victims.
In the same context, sentences imposed for violent crimes against migrants should be aggravated where
there is a racial, religious or any other discriminatory element so as to make a clear statement to society on
the unacceptability of such intolerance. In providing services to migrants who are victims, it is important torespect the right of victims to be individually assessed to determine their special needs. Services must be
tailored to gender-based considerations and the type and nature of the violence inflicted on victims should
be considered. Examples of special measures include sexual assault crisis centres, shelters for women subject
to violence and hotlines to assist victims of crimes motivated by bias.
B. Gender-Bias Crimes and the Hate Crime Paradigm—Femicide and Gender-Related Killings
Certain cases of gender-based violence and gender-related killing may fall in the category of crime
motivated by intolerance or discrimination. Gender-related killing of women is generally understood to referto the intentional murder of women because they are women, whether the crime is committed in public orin private.42 Among the legal definitions in countries that have adopted provisions creating specific offences
to deal with gender-related killing of women and girls, only some require a specific mental state on the partof the perpetrator, such as misogyny, hatred or contempt for the victim because of her gender; any othermotive related to her gender; or the context of unequal power relations.
In her 2012 report,43 the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences
identified gender-related killing as the extreme manifestation of violence against women, often representing
the final event of an ignored continuum of violence. Rooted in gender-based discrimination and the unequal
power relations between men and women, gender-related killing is frequently made more likely by theexistence of other forms of discrimination. Some groups of women are particularly vulnerable to violence,either because of their nationality, ethnicity, religion or language or because they belong to an indigenous
group, are migrants, are stateless, are refugees, live in underdeveloped, rural or remote communities, arehomeless, are in institutions or in detention, have disabilities, are elderly, are widowed, or live in conflict,post-conflict or disaster situations.
Several international and regional treaties contain binding obligations on States parties to prevent andinvestigate gender-based violence against women, to prosecute and punish the perpetrators and to protect
and provide redress to the victims.44 Those treaties are complemented by internationally agreed instruments
and resolutions on violence against women and gender-related killing of women and girls.45
Today, most countries have laws to address violence against women and some have criminalized genderrelated killing of women. However, in many other countries, existing legal provisions are gender-neutral andhence do not allow for specific responses in cases of crimes motivated by intolerance or discrimination basedon sex or gender. Moreover, not all forms of violence against women are criminalized or prohibited in many
countries and some legal systems still retain procedural provisions that discriminate against women or havea discriminatory impact on women, which allows perpetrators to escape criminal responsibility. Somecountries have established the crime of femicide or feminicide in their criminal codes, although the subjective
and objective elements of the crime vary. Other countries have included gender-related aggravating factors
42

UNODC/CCPCJ/EG.8/2014/2, para. 4.
Available at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A-HRC-20-16-Add4_en.pdf.
44
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Inter-American Convention on the Prevention,
Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women; Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violenceagainst Women and Domestic Violence; Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Womenin Africa.
45
Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (General Assembly resolution 48/104, annex); Beijing Declaration
and Platform for Action, as adopted by the Fourth World Conference on Women (1995); updated Model Strategies and Practical
Measures on the Elimination of Violence against Women in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (General
Assembly resolution 65/228, annex); General Assembly resolutions 68/191 and 70/176 on taking action against gender-related
killing of women and girls.
43

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
for homicide offences or for offences in general.46
It has also been highlighted that including gender or “gender hostility” in domestic hate crime legislation
so that violent crimes against women are considered acts of prejudice to oppress, subordinate and control
women, could help to prevent victim-blaming and promote offender accountability.47
According to the UNODC Global Study on Homicide (2013),48 what emerges from available statisticalevidence relating to the relationship between victims and offenders is that a significant portion of lethal
violence against women takes place in a domestic environment. The study further suggests that exploring
intimate partner/family-related homicide is one way of gaining a clearer understanding of the killing of
women due to gender motives. In contrast to other types of homicide in which the victims are predominantly
men, the percentage of female homicide victims resulting from intimate partner/family-related homicide ismuch higher than the corresponding percentage of male victims in all regions. Homicide of this type is theultimate consequence of unequal power relationships between men and women in the private sphere, which
it serves to reinforce and sustain.
UNODC launched the Femicide Watch Platform49 at the 26th session of the United Nations Commission
on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (2017). The prototype has been developed by the Academic
Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) Vienna Femicide Team and the United Nations Studies
Association, in consultation with many stakeholders, including UNODC and the UN Special Rapporteur on
Violence Against Women. The prototype contains key information on femicide such as definitions, official
data and landmark documents, and best practices in various action areas, including data collection efforts,
investigations, legislation, and prevention measures, from all over the world. Offering a global and integrated
platform, it also provides information for policy and decision makers at all levels, ranging from criminal
justice system to civil society activists and academics, as well as practitioners.
In another more focused study of UNODC, the Global Study on Homicide/Gender-related killing of womenand girls (2018),50 it was highlighted that gender-related killings of women and girls are committed in avariety of contexts and through different mechanisms. In broader terms, such killings can be divided into
those perpetrated within the family (intimate partner and domestic violence, honour-related killings of womenand girls, dowry-related killings of women); and those perpetrated outside the family sphere (killings ofwomen in the context of armed conflict, gender-based killings of aboriginal and indigenous women, killingsof women due to accusations of sorcery or witchcraft, killing of female sex workers). Data availability atregional and global levels show that the vast majority of cases of this type of crime fall into the first category.
Gender-related killing of women and girls is analysed in the aforementioned study using the indicator for
intimate partner/family-related homicide. This provides a concept that covers most gender-related killingsof women, is comparable and can be aggregated at global level. Other existing national data labelled as“femicide” are not comparable as countries use different legal definitions of this concept when collecting data.
Where data are available, however, it is clear that intimate partner/family-related homicide covers most of
the killings categorized as “femicide” and is a good fit for analysing trends in the latter.
Statistical data reflected in the study included the following:✓ A total of 87,000 women were intentionally killed in 2017. More than half of them (58 per cent)—
50,000—were killed by intimate partners or family members, meaning that 137 women across the46

See “Guide for the thematic discussion on the responsibility of effective, fair, humane and accountable criminal justice systems
in preventing and countering crime motivated by intolerance or discrimination of any kind”, Note by the Secretariat, E/
CN.15/2019/6, para. 46.
47
See Aisha K. Gill and Hannah Mason-Bish, “Addressing violence against women as a form of hate crime: limitations andpossibilities”, Feminist Review, No. 105 (2013); and Mark Austin Walters and Jessica Tumath, “Gender “Hostility”, Rape and theHate Crime Paradigm”, Modern Law Review 77(4), pp. 563-596.
48
Available at https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf.
49
http://femicide-watch.org/.
50
Available at https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/GSH2018/GSH18_Gender-related_killing_of_women_and_girls.pdf.

98

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
world are killed by a member of their own family every day.
✓ More than a third (30,000) of the women intentionally killed in 2017 were killed by their current orformer intimate partner—someone they would normally expect to trust.
✓ Based on revised data, the estimated number of women killed by intimate partners or family members
in 2012 was 48,000 (47 per cent of all female homicide victims). The annual number of female deaths
worldwide resulting from intimate partner/family-related homicide therefore seems be on the increase.
✓ The largest number (20,000) of all women killed worldwide by intimate partners or family members
in 2017 was in Asia, followed by Africa (19,000), the Americas (8,000) Europe (3,000) and Oceania (300).
However, with an intimate partner/family-related homicide rate of 3.1 per 100,000 female population,
Africa is the region where women run the greatest risk of being killed by their intimate partner orfamily members, while Europe (0.7 per 100,000 population) is the region where the risk is lowest.
Americas at 1.6, Oceania at 1.3 and Asia, at 0.9.
The findings of the study show that even though men are the principal victims of homicide globally,
women continue to bear the heaviest burden of lethal victimization as a result of gender stereotypes andinequality. Many of the victims of “femicide” are killed by their current and former partners, but they arealso killed by fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters and other family members because of their role and status
as women. The death of those killed by intimate partners does not usually result from random or spontaneousacts, but rather from the culmination of prior gender-related violence. Jealousy and fear of abandonment areamong the motives.
C. “Cyber Hate”: Countering Related Crimes in the Online Environment
1. Hate Crimes through the Internet and Social Networks
The growing reach of the Internet, the rapid spread of mobile information and communications technologies(ICTs) and the wide diffusion of social media represent new challenges in the field of combating discriminationand intolerance crimes, given their potential for promoting and propagating the discourse and incitement of
hatred. It is therefore essential to put in place coherent measures and responses to counter related crimesin the online environment as well as particularly address hate speech on the Internet, which has become agrowing concern.51
An important regional instrument in this field is the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on
Cybercrime, concerning the criminalization of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed throughcomputer systems (2003) (see also above). The Protocol requires each Party to, first, adopt such legislativeand other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, whencommitted intentionally and without right, the conduct of distributing, or otherwise making available, racist
and xenophobic material to the public through a computer system (article 3, paragraph 1).52 53
51

According to the draft UNODC comprehensive study on cybercrime (2013), computer ‐ related acts involving hate speech” are placed within the category of “computer content-related acts”. This category refers to “computer content” – thewords, images, sounds and representations transmitted or stored by computer systems, including the internet. The material
offence object in content-related offences is often a person, an identifiable group of persons, or a widely held value or belief.
One argument for the inclusion of content-related acts within the term “cybercrime” is that computer systems, including theinternet, have fundamentally altered the scope and reach of dissemination of information. See the text of the draft study, whichis available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/cybercrime/CYBERCRIME_STUDY_210213.pdf (page 18).
52
According to the Protocol, “racist and xenophobic material” means any written material, any image or any otherrepresentation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any
individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as apretext for any of these factors (article 2).
53
The explanatory report accompanying the Protocol (available at https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/
DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016800d37ae) specifies that whether a communication of racist and xenophobic
material is considered as a private communication or as a dissemination to the public, has to be determined on the basis of thecircumstances of the case. Primarily, what counts is the intent of the sender that the message concerned will only be received
by the pre-determined receiver. The presence of this subjective intent can be established on the basis of a number of objective
factors, such as the content of the message, the technology used, applied security measures, and the context in which themessage is sent. Where such messages are sent at the same time to more than one recipient, the number of the receivers andthe nature of the relationship between the sender and the receiver/s is a factor to determine whether such a communication
may be considered as private.
Further, exchanging racist and xenophobic material in chat rooms, posting similar messages in newsgroups or discussion fora,

99

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
The Protocol also requires each Party to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary
to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right, theconduct of threatening, through a computer system, with the commission of a serious criminal offence as
defined under its domestic law, (i) persons for the reason that they belong to a group, distinguished by race,
colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion, if used as a pretext for any of these factors,or (ii) a group of persons which is distinguished by any of these characteristics (article 4, paragraph 1).54
The Protocol further obliges States parties to adopt such legislative and other measures as may benecessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without
right, the conduct of insulting publicly, through a computer system, (i) persons for the reason that they
belong to a group distinguished by race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion, if used
as a pretext for any of these factors; or (ii) a group of persons which is distinguished by any of thesecharacteristics. A Party may either require that the offence has the effect that the person or group of
persons is (not only potentially, but also actually) exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or reserve the rightnot to apply, in whole or in part, the criminalization provision (article 5).55
Another category of criminal offences that the Additional Protocol requires to be established in thedomestic legal order of States parties includes the denial, gross minimization, approval or justification of
genocide or crimes against humanity. Thus, each Party shall adopt such legislative measures as may benecessary to establish the following conduct as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed
intentionally and without right: distributing or otherwise making available, through a computer system tothe public, material which denies, grossly minimizes, approves or justifies acts constituting genocide or
crimes against humanity, as defined by international law and recognized as such by final and binding
decisions of the International Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, orof any other international court established by relevant international instruments and whose jurisdiction isrecognized by that Party. A Party may either require that the denial or the gross minimization referred toin the article is committed with the intent to incite hatred, discrimination or violence against any individual
or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used
as a pretext for any of these factors, or otherwise; or reserve the right not to apply, in whole or in part, thecriminalization provision (article 6).56
2.

Cyber Violence against Women and Girls and Other Vulnerable Groups
Acts of cyber violence against women and girls (cyber-VAWG) have emerged over the last years as a
global problem with serious implications for societies and economies around the world. The growing
prominence of mobile devices, social media, and other communication technology has opened up new avenues
for gender violence, with the fast spread of content and digital footprint magnifying the consequences for thevictims, having a profound impact at individual, community and society levels.
Research shows that one in three women will have experienced a form of violence in her lifetime, anddespite the relatively new and growing phenomenon of internet connectivity, it is estimated that one in ten
are examples of making such material available to the public. In these cases, the material is accessible to any person. Even
when access to the material would require authorization by means of a password, the material is accessible to the public wheresuch authorization would be given to anyone or to any person who meets certain criteria. In order to determine whether the
making available or distributing was to the public or not, the nature of the relationship between the persons concerned should
be taken into account.
54
Pursuant to the explanatory report accompanying the Protocol, the notion of “threat” may refer to a menace which createsfear in the persons to whom the menace is directed, that they will suffer the commission of a serious criminal offence (e.g.
affecting the life, personal security or integrity, serious damage to properties, etc., of the victim or their relatives). It is left toStates Parties to determine what a serious criminal offence is. There is a no restriction that the threat should be public. The
article also covers threats by private communications.
55
According to the explanatory report, the notion of “insult” refers to any offensive, contemptuous or invective expression
which prejudices the honour or the dignity of a person. It should be clear from the expression itself that the insult is directly
connected with the insulted person’s belonging to the group. Unlike in the case of threat, an insult expressed in private
communications is not covered by this provision.
56
The European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that the denial or revision of “clearly established historical facts –such as the Holocaust – […] would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17” of the ECHR (see in this context
the Lehideux and Isorni judgment of 23 September 1998).

100

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
women have already experienced a form of cyber violence since the age of 15. Women aged 18 to 24 are ata heightened risk of being exposed to every kind of cyber-VAGW as they are uniquely likely to experience
stalking and sexual harassment, while also not escaping the high rates of other types of harassment common
to young people in general.
According to the report of the U.N. Broadband Commission for Digital Development,57 there are six broad
categories that encompass forms of cyber-VAWG, as follows: hacking (the use of technology to gain illegal orunauthorized access to systems or resources for the purpose of acquiring personal information, altering or
modifying information, or slandering and denigrating the victim and/or VAWG organizations); impersonation(the use of technology to assume the identity of the victim or someone else in order to access private
information, embarrass or shame the victim, contact the victim, or create fraudulent identity documents);
surveillance/tracking (the use of technology to stalk and monitor a victim’s activities and behaviours either
in real-time or historically); harassment/spamming (the use of technology to continuously contact, annoy,
threaten, and/or scare the victim); recruitment (use of technology to lure potential victims into violent
situations, fraudulent postings and advertisements of traffickers); and malicious distribution (use of technology
to manipulate and distribute defamatory and illegal materials related to the victim and/or VAWG
organizations, e.g., threatening to or leaking intimate photos/video; using technology as a propaganda tool topromote violence against women).
In addition, the proliferation of online violence means cyber-VAWG has gained its own set of terminology,
such as “revenge porn” consisting of an individual posting either intimate photographs or intimate videos ofanother individual online with the aim of publicly shaming and humiliating that person, and even inflicting
real damage on the target’s ‘real-world’ life (such as getting them fired from their job).
Although several countries have adopted legislation to combat cyber-violence, current legislative andpolicy approaches may need to be reconsidered with a view to addressing adequately the psychological andsocial impacts of harassment and/or sexual coercion that women and girls suffer through this type of crime.58
In this context, cyber-VAWG need to be addressed as a systemic concern and confronted through a multilevel approach which is sensitive to a gender lens.
With respect to the effects of new information technologies on the abuse and exploitation of children, a
UNODC study59 highlighted research findings that girls account for the majority of victims of child abuse andexploitation, although boys are increasingly at risk as well. Figures from the Internet Watch Foundation(IWF) show that up to 76 per cent of sexual abuse images on the Internet featured girls in 2013, while 10 per
cent featured boys and 9 per cent featured both genders. With respect to the commercial sexual abuse andexploitation of children, the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that 1.2 million children aretrafficked per year and 1.8 million children are exploited annually in the global sex trade, of which about
two-thirds are female. In cases of children abused and exploited in the travel and tourism industries, girls
are again most frequently victimized.
In relation to user-generated content such as “sexting”, girls may be disproportionately victimized. A 2012
study described the gender dynamics involved in sexting as follows: “Sexting is not a gender-neutral practice;
it is shaped by the gender dynamics of the peer group in which, primarily, boys harass girls, and it isexacerbated by the gendered norms of popular culture, family and school that fail to recognize the problem
or to support girls. We found considerable evidence of an age-old double standard, by which sexually active
boys are to be admired and ‘rated’, while sexually active girls are denigrated and despised as ‘sluts’. This
57

Launched by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) in response to the United Nations Secretary-General’s call to step up efforts to meet the Millennium
Development Goals. Established in May 2010, the Commission brought together industry executives with government leaders,thought leaders and policy pioneers and international agencies and organizations concerned with development. The report isavailable at http://www.unwomen.org/~/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2015/cyber_violence_
gender%20report.pdf?v=1&d=20150924T154259.
58
See Henry, N. and Powell, A. (2015). Beyond the «sext»: Technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment against adultwomen. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(1), p. 105.
59
Study on the Effects of New Information Technologies on the Abuse and Exploitation of Children, UNODC 2015, pp. 23 et seq.
The study is available at https://www.unodc.org/documents/Cybercrime/Study_on_the_Effects.pdf.

101

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
creates gender specific risks where girls are unable to openly speak about sexual activities and practices,while boys are at risk of peer exclusion if they do not brag about sexual experiences”.60
Technology plays an important role in exacerbating this effect, with mobile phones and other devices,
social networking sites, and other communication technologies facilitating the objectification of girls by
allowing the creation, exchange, collection, ranking and display of images. Girls also suffer more frequently
from cyberbullying.
A survey conducted by Microsoft found that worldwide, 37 per cent of children aged 8-17 years had been
subjected to a range of online activities such as mean or unfriendly treatment, being made fun of or teased,
or being called mean names. Of that number, 55 per cent were girls.61 Further, girls may be exposed to ahigher proportion of harmful content in the context of child sexual abuse material and sexually explicit selfgenerated material sent by perpetrators during a grooming process.
In addition, youth identifying themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender may be more likely toreceive online solicitations and can experience higher degrees of cyberbullying or harassment. In particular,
boys who are gay or exploring their sexual orientation may be more liable to become involved in or to be
victimized in Internet-initiated sex crimes than other children. With respect to harassing conduct, a study in
the United States found that more than 50 per cent of LGBT youth reported being subjected to cyberbullying.62
In enhancing the fight against ICT-facilitated child abuse and exploitation, national authorities may need
to focus on a child protection approach that fully respects human rights and takes into account genderconsiderations as appropriate; ensuring that legislation keeps pace with technological innovation; recruiting,training and maintaining specialized personnel; gaining access to state-of-the-art technological resources;developing effective mechanisms for accessing third party data and conducting undercover investigations
that are consistent with the rule of law; as well as developing policy guidance on harmful conduct committed
by youth. The formulation of policies in this area is best based on a multidisciplinary approach that draws
on research findings and best practices from social science, legal policy and public policy.

XI. EPILOGUE: TOWARDS MULTI-DISCIPLINARY STRATEGIES AND
POLICIES TO COMBAT CRIMES MOTIVATED BY INTOLERANCE ANDDISCRIMINATION
Multi-disciplinary strategies and policies need to be in place to combat effectively crimes motivated byintolerance. Elements of such strategies and policies may include the elaboration of relevant legislation withclear conceptual frameworks to facilitate effective implementation, ensure legal certainty and avoid potential
abuses; the development of monitoring and recording mechanisms for the effective collection of data; theelaboration of prosecutorial policies/guidelines for use in prosecuting related crime cases or supervising
related crime investigations; adopting victim-outreach strategies to address the problem of under-reporting;mainstreaming gender considerations into the work of prosecution offices and law enforcement authorities
on crimes motivated by bias; the creation of a special units or focal points in prosecutors’ offices and law
enforcement authorities to help ensure that hate crimes are addressed effectively; steps to enhanceinteragency cooperation and collaboration; and the elaboration of communications and engagement strategies,
including steps such as outreach to local communities, partnerships with civil society, public awarenesscampaigns and a media strategy to ensure the appropriate dissemination of information to the public.
From a policy perspective, the thematic discussion at the 28th session of the United Nations Commission
on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (May 2019) was devoted to the theme entitled “Responsibility of60

NSPCC, 2012. Children, Young People and ‘Sexting’. A Qualitative Study. p. 12. Available at http://www.lse.ac.uk/
media%40lse/documents/MPP/Sexting-Report-NSPCC.pdf.
61
Cross-Tab Marketing Services & Telecommunications Research Group for Microsoft Corporation, 2012. Online Bullying
Among Youth 8-17 Years Old – Worldwide. Executive Summary. See https://download.microsoft.com/download/E/8/4/
E84BEEAB-7B92-4CF8-B5C7-7CC20D92B4F9/WW%20Online%20Bullying%20Survey%20-%20Executive%20Summary%20-%20
WW_Final.pdf.
62Blumenfeld W. J. / Cooper, R. M., 2010. “LGBT and Allied Youth Responses to Cyberbullying: Policy Implications”,
International Journal of Critical Pedagogy 3: pp. 114-133.

102

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
effective, fair, humane and accountable criminal justice systems in preventing and countering crime motivatedby intolerance or discrimination of any kind”. That was a propitious occasion for Member States to exchange
views, experiences and lessons learned in this field and to provide direction on the role of UNODC in helping
them build appropriate and robust crime prevention and criminal justice responses and implement
international standards and good practices in this regard.
It is further envisaged that the forthcoming Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice, to be held in Kyoto, Japan, in April 2020, will also discuss the challenges posed byintolerance crimes, in continuity with the outcomes of the previous congresses, the Salvador and Doha
Declaration. As the Discussion Guide of the Fourteenth Congress stressed, reforms to create more victimcentred criminal justice systems are essential to prevent secondary and repeat victimization and to increase
the reporting of incidents, thus responding more effectively to crime and ensuring better protection of
specific groups of victims and victims of particular types of crimes.63 From that perspective, the Fourteenth
Congress is expected to offer significant contributions to advancing the promotion of the Sustainable
Development Goals – and relevant targets - of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including thosepertaining to the end of all forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls (targets 5.1 and 5.2).

63

A/CONF.234/PM.1, para. 84.

103

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108

PARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CRIME MOTIVATED BY
INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION—BRAZILIANLEGISLATION AND EXPERIENCE
André Lopes Lasmar*

I. INTRODUCTION
In his iconic book published in 1936, “Roots of Brazil”1, after having lived a couple of years in Germany asa journalist correspondent and written some articles trying to describe the main characteristics of theBrazilian people to Europeans, the renowned Brazilian sociologist Sergio Buarque de Holanda coined themyth according to which Brazilians are mainly “cordial men” (not necessarily referring to a candid person
but someone who acts mostly by heart than by reason, exactly the opposite of what he had seen in Germany,as he understood both societies at the time). From that time on, it is widely believed both locally andinternationally that the mixed and interracial Brazilian society is a very generous, tolerant and pacific one,not prone to violence or war. Although it is true that Brazil has not waged a war of conquest for many
decades since the Paraguayan War, current statistics of violence and crimes motivated by intolerance anddiscrimination tend to show otherwise of its own people.
The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 establishes that “the practice of racism is a non-bailable crime, with nolimitation, subject to the penalty of confinement, under the terms of the law”2. Brazil signed and ratified mostof the International Documents related to the subject of the protection of individual rights, such as theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, theConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention against
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Membersof Their Families, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, among others. Brazil has
also enacted domestic law to enforce most of these international obligations.
Nevertheless, the steadily growing number of crimes motivated by intolerance and discrimination in
Brazil is an undeniable reality, especially in recent times, proving what is widely known—that the very
existence of the legislation to cope with the problem rarely seems to be the single solution to what isperceived as a complex and multifactorial problem. Many changes beyond the legislation and criminal justiceitself must be achieved in order to reduce the number of such crimes, namely educational, economic andsocial structural approaches. It is important though to stress that this paper deals exclusively with viable
and effective criminal justice responses to problems faced here.
After a hotly contested presidential election in October 2018, many minorities in Brazil justifiably fear an
enhancement of such crimes and even more frequent intolerant and discriminatory acts and/or policies
against them in the light of a new far-right regime which is due to rule for the next four years, starting on
1 January 2019. Although it is naturally too soon to draw to any conclusions on this matter, the fact remainsthat this theme is to be seriously studied, observed and addressed not only by the domestic criminal justicesystem but within the Brazilian society and international community as a whole.

* Federal Prosecutor in Brazil and PhD in International Law from the Law School of University of Sao Paulo. Contact:
andrelasmar@usp.br
1
Holanda, Sérgio Buarque. Raízes do Brasil. São Paulo: Editora José Olympio, 1936.
2
Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil. Official translation access on http://english.tse.jus.br/arquivos/federal-constitution

104

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

II. TARGETED GROUPS AND VIOLENCE MOTIVATED BY INTOLERANCEAND DISCRIMINATION IN BRAZIL
After more than twenty years of dictatorship in Brazil, the Brazilian Constitution was promulgated in
1988, whose article 5(XLII), as mentioned before, determined that the practice of racism was to be criminalized
as a non-bailable crime, with no limitation, and punished with imprisonment under the terms of the law.
It did not take long (precisely three months to be more accurate, from 5 October 1988 when the Constitution
was promulgated until 5 January 1989) for the Congress to enact a law establishing what is to be considered
racism and its penalties: Act 7716/1989, whose first article determines that crimes resulting from “prejudiceof race or colour” will be punished.
Although this newly enacted law, with its punishment of imprisonment up to five years, was far better
than its previous Act 1390/1951, which considered racism as “the practice of acts resulting from prejudice ofrace or colour” only as a misdemeanour, the new legislation did not eliminate its original problem as being
too narrow in describing which targeted and victim groups would be protected by the law.
It took more than eight years for the Congress to review the scope of it, until it adopted Act 9459/1997,
providing a new definition to the aforementioned article 1, determining that crimes resulting from“discrimination and prejudice against race, colour, ethnicity, religion or national origin” will be punished.
There is no doubt that the new terms of the law are better than the original one, for two main reasons:first, it criminalized both prejudice and discrimination; second, the protected groups were broadened toinclude victims that might be targeted exclusively because of their ethnicity, religion or national origin.
According to Oxford Dictionary, prejudice means: “1. preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or
actual experience. 2. Law. Harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgement”. And
discrimination means: “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the
ground of race, age, or sex”.3
The broadening of the protected group is also welcomed, albeit still insufficient. In 2014, a well-known
human rights activist Congresswoman in Brazil presented in Parliament a Draft Act 7582/2014 to “define thecrimes of hate and intolerance and to set mechanisms to prevent them”, whose general but accurate article 2
determines thatevery person, regardless of class and social origin, migrant condition, refugee or internallydisplaced person, sexual orientation, identity and gender expression, age, religion, homelesssituation and disabilities shall enjoy the fundamental rights inherent to every human, and it shallbe guaranteed to them the opportunity to live without violence, and to preserve their physical andmental health as well as their moral, intellectual and social improvement.
Articles 3 and 4 of the Draft Act clarify, respectively, hate and intolerance crimes against the protectedgroups mentioned in article 2. Article 3 determines that it is considered a hate crime if the offence is against“life, physical integrity (assault) or someone´s health motivated by prejudice or discrimination”, while article
4 sets a list of acts which shall be considered as intolerance crimes, such as, psychological violence, to denya position in the public or private sector, to prevent access to public transportation and public or private
schools, among many other unlawful acts described in quite similar terms of the current Act 7716/1989.
Nevertheless, this Draft Act has not been given the deserved consideration by Parliament during its
current term (2014/2018), and some minorities in Brazil fear that the newly elected conservative Congress
due to resume its duties on 1 January 2019 might be even less prone to discuss and enact such measures on
their behalf.
Meanwhile, jurists and the criminal justice system in Brazil must work with the Act still in effect from1989, whose must recent text sets a very specific targeted and protected group against crimes motivated by
3

Oxford Dictionary of English. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

105

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
intolerance and discrimination.
A. Intolerance and Violence against Religious Minorities in Brazil
The most recent and official report on Religious Intolerance and Violence in Brazil was presented in 2016
by the Federal Special Secretary on Human Rights, collecting data and information nationwide between 2011
and 2015.4 It considered religious intolerance and violence to be all ideologies and offensive attitudes against
different creeds and religions that might in some extreme circumstances become an actual persecution, hatecrime, discrimination and even the harm against individuals, leading to assault or murder.
During this period between 2011 and 2015, at least 95 cases of assault directed against Afro-Brazilian
people who professed religions with African origins and 99 cases of depredation, arson and destruction ofcult sanctuaries of these religious groups were officially reported, though many more are believed to beunderreported.
The number of cases brought to justice varied from a small number of 12 in 2011/2012 to 31 in 2014/2015,
according to the Report, most of them waiting for a final decision.
B. Violence against Indigenous Peoples of Brazil
Brazilian law also criminalizes acts which are motivated by prejudice or discrimination based on theethnicity of the victim, and this is particularly worrying in relation to the native communities, especially the
Indigenous Peoples, who suffer from aggravated discrimination and poverty in the national society, and wholack the adequate assistance and effective policies to ameliorate their precarious situation.
The Indigenist Missionary Council (Centro Indigenista Missionário, or CIMI), a well-known organizationin defence of Indigenous Peoples´ rights and linked to the Catholic Church, has been presenting its Reporton Violence against Indigenous Peoples since 1996 (since 2003, CIMI has been publishing it annually withdata and information from the previous year), with an alarming and steadily growing number of violent cases
directed against these communities in Brazil.
According to its latest Report presented in September 2018, collecting data from 2017, the amount ofsystematic violence against Indigenous Peoples in Brazil has increased dramatically, including at least thefollowing number of well-reported and documented cases: 110 murders, 27 attempted murders, 19
manslaughters, 14 death threats, 12 assaults, 16 sexual assaults and 36 cases of discrimination and otherforms of threatening.5
The elevated number of crimes and violence specifically targeting these already impoverished communities
is worrying, despite the fact that they represent less than 0.5% of Brazil´s total population (approximatelynine hundred thousand Indigenous Individuals).
C. Crimes Motivated by Race and Colour
Brazil has experienced a spate of homicides unprecedented in modern western history in “peaceful times”(many international and local experts truly believe, though, that Brazil lives in a state of undeclared civilwar), revealing a “devastating scenario” in which Brazil “broke its own record for homicides last year [2017]”,counting 63,880 deaths by violent means.6
According to the Brazilian Institute of Applied Economic Research (or IPEA based on its acronym inPortuguese), in cooperation with the Brazilian Forum on Public Security, the Atlas from violence in 2017
showed that most victims of such violent crimes in Brazil in 2016 were men (92%), black (74.5%) and young
4
Secretaria Especial de Direitos Humanos. Relatório sobre Intolerância e Violência Religiosa no Brasil (2011-2015): Resultados
Preliminares. Access on: http://www.mdh.gov.br/informacao-ao-cidadao/participacao-social/cnrdr/pdfs/relatorio-de-intoleranciae-violencia-religiosa-rivir-2015/view
5Conselho Indigenista Missionário (CIMI). Relatório Violência conta os Povos Indígenas no Brasil – Dados de 2017. Access on
https://cimi.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Relatorio-violencia-contra-povos-indigenas_2017-Cimi.pdf
6‘A devastating scenario’: Brazil sets new record for homicides at 63,880 deaths. The Guardian, published online on 9th
August 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/09/brazil-sets-new-record-for-homicides-63880-deaths. Access on
03/11/2018.

106

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
between 15 and 29 years old (53%).7
Although it is not possible to affirm on legal terms at least that all these crimes against young black men
were motivated by intolerance and discrimination (most are believed to be the result of drug trafficking wars
in major cities), this same research published in its 2018 version concludes that “racial inequality in Brazil
expresses itself in a very clear manner in relation to lethal violence and policies of public security”.8 It is also
observed that the risk of a young black boy to be a victim of homicide is 2.7 times higher than that of a young
white boy in Brazil.
D. Crimes Motivated by Gender and Sexual Orientation
After a paradigmatic case in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington/DC
presented against Brazil in 1998, a law was finally enacted in 2006, known as “Maria da Penha Act” (in regard
to the victim´s name of the case presented before the Commission), aggravating the penalty of domestic
violence.
Recently, the Brazilian Congress enacted the “Feminicide Act” (or “Femicide Act”; Act 13104/2015),
declaring as Murder in the First Degree (“qualified and aggravated murder”) the homicide of a women forthe simple reason of her feminine condition, either in domestic and family violence cases, or due to scorn or
discrimination against her nature as a woman.
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) communities have been fighting for many years to have asimilar specific criminalization of acts directly targeting them, although the Brazilian Congress has refused
to adopt it, until now. Differently from other groups, these groups are not especially protected by the law
and many of them feel marginalized in relation to other victims, particularly due to the restrictive
categorization of the Brazilian legislation.
According to a recent report of an important activist Non-Governmental Group, at least 387 murders
were committed in 2017 in Brazil motivated by sexual intolerance and discrimination.9

III. BRAZILIAN APPROACHES BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO
CRIMES MOTIVATED BY INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION
Although the number of crimes motivated by intolerance and discrimination in Brazil is considerably
high, the main cause for it is not a lack of legislation, but its enforcement as well as an absence of a coherent
and nationally uniform mechanism and effective responses to this type of criminal offence.
The aforementioned Draft Act 7582/2014 intends to cope with this absence of uniformity and reliabledata by establishing in its article 6 the following obligations of Brazilian authorities: I – the operational
integration of the Judiciary, the Prosecution Service and the Public Legal Defence in order to safeguard
victims´ rights; II – the elaboration of studies, research, statistics and other relevant information that could
map the causes, consequences and the frequency of the practice of such hate crimes motivated by intolerance;
III – the adoption of a specialized police district to cope with crimes motivated by hate and intolerance; andIV – to stimulate the continuous learning of public servants in the attendance of potential victims of suchcrimes.
The lack of reliable data and statistics involving crimes motivated by intolerance and discrimination in
Brazil is remarkable and undeniable, since most data and information are gathered by non-governmentalorganizations, as shown in this paper.
Nevertheless, one major advance in this area in Brazil might come from the already implemented (in7Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA). Atlas da violência 2017. Access on http://www.ipea.gov.br/atlasviolencia/
download/2/atlas-2017.
8
Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA). Atlas da violência 2018. Access on http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/
stories/PDFs/relatorio_institucional/180604_atlas_da_violencia_2018.pdf
9 Grupo Gay da Bahia. Pessoas LGBT mortas no Brasil – Relatório 2017. Access on https://homofobiamata.files.wordpress.
com/2017/12/relatorio-2081.pdf

107

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
some States) obligation number three, mentioned above, in the Draft Act 7582/2014, determining the adoptionof a specialized police district to cope with crimes motivated by intolerance and discrimination, which is
known in Brazil as DECRADI (in its original Portuguese acronym from “Delegacia de Crimes Raciais e
Delitos de Intolerância”, or Police District on Racial Crimes and Intolerant Offences).
The first experience of its kind in Brazil was established in 2006 in Sao Paulo (Brazil´s largest and mostpopulated city), specifically designed to combat racism and homophobia, prejudice and intolerance against
religious minorities, as well as crimes against ethnic minorities, migrants and Romani (or Roma) people(popularly but improperly called “Gypsies”).
In the last few years several other States have created their own DECRADI. The actual results in mostparts of Brazil are still to be seen. Just as an example, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil´s second most populated city,
has only recently in August 2018 implemented its first DECRADI.
The experience in Sao Paulo, on the other hand, has shown that the establishment of a specialized police
force against crimes motivated by intolerance and discrimination is welcome: from January 2010 until
November 2015 the DECRADI of Sao Paulo investigated 962 cases.10
The expected future coordination among all sectors of the criminal justice system is to be thoroughly
discussed and implemented as soon as possible, since the number of crimes motivated by intolerance anddiscrimination is rising significantly in Brazil.

IV. CONCLUSION
Brazil has a high record of crimes motivated by intolerance and discrimination, despite the fact it has
immediately after the promulgation of its latest 1988 Constitution enacted a specific law coping with the
problem of racism. Thirty years later, the world and Brazilian society have significantly evolved, and the
newly elected Congress with the newly elected President should gather and discuss a new set of morecomprehensive rules, in order to cope with this “devastating scenario” of more than sixty-three thousand
violent deaths only last year.
It is time for the Federal Government to show that it does not condone any
sort of violence, especially that which is criminalized as hate crime or motivated by intolerance anddiscrimination. The criminal justice system would never be, for obvious reasons, the single solution to this
holistic problem, since educational, economic and social approaches are indispensable. But its response to thistype of crime is certainly a good start, and the criminal justice system definitely plays a key role in thesolution

10108

Government of the State of Sao Paulo´s webpage, access on http://www.ssp.sp.gov.br/LeNoticia.aspx?ID=36514

CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CRIME MOTIVATED BY
INTOLERENCE AND DISCRIMINATION
Raufa Haidar*

I. INTRODUCTION
Until the new Constitution of the Republic of Maldives came into effect in 2008, the criminal justicesystem of the Maldives has been functioning as an integrated body, whereby all relevant agencies of thesystem work together, but these bodies (i.e. investigation, prosecution and adjudication) became independent
with the enforcement of the new Constitution, the purpose being to empower these agencies to work
effectively and independently.

II. THE STATUS OF CRIME MOTIVED BY INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION
Although Maldives still remains a homogeneous country belonging to one nationality, it has become a hostfor thousands of migrant workers and hundreds of tourists of different nationalities. Thus, Maldives can now
be considered a country where multi-racial people live or reside, be it for pleasure or for economic reasons.
Reported cases of ill-treatment faced by migrant workers are increasing although the basis of suchtreatment is ambiguous, and the negative attitudes faced at times by migrant workers from locals are ofnoticeable concern, but no official survey has been done so far.
In a press statement1 released by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives in 2016 on theInternational Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, it was explained that Maldives is seeing an
increase of racial indifference and hostility towards those of different races living the country. It pointed outthat expatriate workers are subjected to harsh conditions such as congested spaces and that the mostnotable suffering inflicted on those workers is the society’s perception of them as insignificant, making themprone to all kinds of abuse. It was also noted that, even though Maldivians are based on the same race, actsof discrimination (however small) against others based on differences among the society are seen and thatbeing judgmental of a person based on his or her island, language, and political or religious differences will
have adverse effects on the society.
With the enforcement of the new Constitution of the Republic of Maldives in the year 2008, discriminationof any kind, including race, national origin, colour, sex, age, mental or physical disability, political or other
opinion, property, birth or other status or native island, was prohibited. Article 17(b) of the Constitution
states:Everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms included in this chapter without discrimination of any
kind, including race, national origin, colour, sex, age, mental or physical disability, political or other opinion,
property, birth or other status, or native island2.
Article 55 of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives guarantees that no person is subjected to cruel,inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, or to torture, while Article 56 of the Constitution ensures
the right to appeal a conviction and sentence, or judgment or order in a criminal or civil matter tried on
anyone, including foreigners, under the Maldivian Law.
Maldives has been taking measures on a national and international level to combat crimes against
discrimination. Maldives acceded to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (ECRD) on 24 April 1984 and to the Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman or* Assistant Legal Officer, Supreme Court of the Maldives.
1
http://www.hrcm.org.mv/dhivehi/news/pressreleasearchive/PR052016.pdf
2Constitution of the Republic of Maldives 2008; Article 17 (b).

109

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) on 20 April 20043. Since then, a lot of work has been done on anational level by the relevant authorities and the parliament. The output of this work can be seen throughthe new enforced laws on sexual offences and harassment, gender equality, and the Domestic Violence Act4.
The object of the Gender Equality Act is to facilitate all steps towards prevention of discrimination basedon gender and prevention of all ideas and practices that promote discrimination between men and women in
conformation with the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women and the
Optional Protocol to the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women5.
According to Section 4 of the Gender Equality Act:
Gender equality, for the purpose of the Act shall mean equality of opportunity, equality inaccessing opportunities, the opportunity to achieve results on equal terms and the fundamental
equality of rights and freedoms for men and women.
Similarly, Maldives has taken important policy initiatives to strengthen labour management and to protect
labour rights including the ratification of the eight International Labour Organization conventions in 2013.
The Government is committed to end the exploitation of workers in Maldives and this commitment was
further demonstrated by the ratification of the Anti-Human Trafficking Act in 2013.6
Legislation, such as the Employment Act and the Civil Service Act (compatible with the Constitution),provides equal socio-economic services and benefits as well as equal access to economic and politicalparticipation. In addition to the above-mentioned legislation, the Penal Code of the Maldives enacted in 2014,provides a mechanism to criminalize the homicide offences, assault, threat offences, property damage anddestruction offences and offences against the family, irrespective of the motive of the offender.

III. INVESTIGATION
In every country, the investigation authorities play a key role in combating any offence. In Maldives themain investigation agency is the Maldives Police Service. They are empowered by the Police Act 2008. The
police are responsible for enforcing criminal law, enhancing public safety, maintaining order and keeping thepeace throughout Maldives.7 Thus police officers are vested with special powers to arrest persons on suspicionof a crime, conduct searches, seize or discover evidence, and investigate criminal acts. The powers of thepolice are further elaborated and extended in the “Regulations on Executing of the Constitutional Authority
and Discretion Accorded to the Police.”
Although Maldives Police Service is the principle investigating agency, the Human Rights Commission(HRCM) of Maldives8 which was established on 10 December 2003 as an independent and autonomous
statutory body, was created by the President of the Republic of Maldives with the right to sue and be sued.
The HRCM has the authority to investigate complaints filed with the HRCM alleging infringement of humanrights or aiding and abetting such an act or should the Commission have reason to believe such an act wascommitted or is being committed9.

IV. PROSECUTION
In the Maldives, the sole power to prosecute any criminal case is vested in the Prosecutor General10.
3

https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/countries.aspx?CountryCode=MDV&Lang=EN
Act No. 17/2014 (The Sexual Offences Act); Act No. 16/2014 (Sexual Harassment Act); Act No. 3/2012 (Domestic ViolenceAct).
5
Section 2; Act No. 18/2016 (Gender Equality Act).
6
Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic review (Human Rights Council; thirtieth session, Agenda item 6 (18September 2015)).
7
Section 2 and 6, Act No.5/2008 (Police Act).
8
http://www.hrcm.org.mv/aboutus/about.aspx#Establishment
9
Section 20, Act No. 6/2006 (Human Rights Commission Act).
10
Article 223, The Constitution of the Republic of Maldives 2008.
4110

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
Article 220 of the Constitution of the Maldives states that there shall be an independent and impartial
Prosecutor General of the Maldives. The Prosecutor General has the power to evaluate and asses theevidence presented by the investigating bodies to determine whether charges should be pursued and to
institute and conduct criminal proceedings against any person before any court in respect of any alleged
offence. These responsibilities and the power of the Prosecutor General are clearly defined in the Constitutionof the Maldives, and they have been further elaborated in the Prosecutor’s General Act11.
While the Constitution ensures an independent and impartial prosecution, prompt investigation andprosecution are also guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives. Article 50 of the Constitution
states:After notice of an alleged offence has been brought to the attention of the investigation
authorities, the matter shall be investigated promptly, and where warranted, the Prosecutor
General shall lay charges as quickly as possible.

V. ADJUDICATIONWith the ratification of the new Constitution of the Republic of Maldives, in the year 2008, the Maldivian
Judiciary entered a new phase of transformation and progress. With the separation of powers of the state, it
was established that all judicial powers are vested in the Supreme Court, High Court and such Trial Courts
as established by the law. According to Article 141 of the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives, theSupreme Court is the highest authority for administering justice. Thus, the Supreme Court has the final
authority on the interpretation of the Constitution, the law, or any other matter dealt by a court of law12.
Also, as the guardian of the Constitution and law, the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the administrationof the court system.
Maldives has a three-tier system for the administration of justice13. The Supreme Court, the High Court
and lower courts. The lower courts, which include at least one Magistrate’s Court (with limited jurisdiction)in each inhabited island, as well as the five specialized courts which sit in Male: The Criminal Court, the Civil
Court, the Drug Court, the Family Court and the Juvenile Court. The Criminal Court as the first instancecourt has jurisdiction to adjudicate all types of criminal cases14. Even though magistrate courts, as the first
instance courts, have jurisdiction to adjudicate criminal cases, an exception has been laid down by the
Judicature Act of the Maldives. Schedule 5 of the Judicature Act stated that the following matters shall not
be adjudicated by the magistrate courts.
(a) Cases related to murder.
(b) Issues specified in the Narcotics Act.
(c) Among offences of theft, embezzlement, deception, fraud and treachery and mugging, those thatinvolve an amount of MVR 100,000 (one hundred thousand) and above, or assets of the same value.
(d) Matters regarding counterfeiting of notes and coins and the contraband of counterfeit money into
Maldives.
(e) Cases related to terrorism.
(f) Charges brought under any of Chapter 1 of the Penal Code under the title ‘Sedition and treason
against the State’.
(g) Cases of rape.
(h) Cases which involve an amount of MVR 5,000,000 (five million) and above, or assets of the same value.

VI. CHALLENGES
The most challenging problem that the Maldives faced in approaching crimes motivated by the intolerance
and discrimination is that there are no specific legal instruments criminalizing crimes motived by intolerance
and discrimination. Though legal instruments against discrimination (as mentioned above) have been
11

Section 15, Act No. 9/2008 (Prosecutor General’s Act).
Article 145 (c), The Constitution of the Republic of Maldives 2008.
13
Act No. 22/2010 (Judicature Act of the Maldives).
14
Schedule 2 of the Act No. 22/2010 (Judicature Act of the Maldives).
12

111

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
established, awareness programmes are not effectively held on the mechanisms for reporting such crimes.
Investigating and other relevant authorities are not well trained to proceed with the investigation anduncovering evidence of such crimes. Hence many of the crimes motivated by intolerance and discrimination
remain unreported, unprosecuted and, therefore, invisible.
Another crime prevention issue faced by Maldives is the delay in prosecution and the adjudication
process for various reasons, the main reason being not having resources and well-trained support staff.
Failure of the investigating authorities to make the investigation in line with the provisions of theConstitution is another critical issue. Article 52 of the Constitution of the Maldives states: “No confession
shall be admissible in evidence unless made in court by an accused who is in a sound state of mind. No
statement or evidence must be obtained from any source by compulsion or by unlawful means and suchstatement or evidence is inadmissible in evidence.” Hence, the investigation itself becomes unconstitutional
if not carried in accordance to the Constitutional provision.
Delay in the investigation, prosecution and in adjudication amounts to disposal of evidence and witnesses
being reluctant to testify against the offenders as they are being threatened. However, the Criminal Procedure
Act15 has taken measures to lessen such problems as it laid down a timeframe for the investigation, prosecution
and adjudication process. It also established a mechanism for witness protection such as suppression ofidentity, testimony through video-link and use of voice distortion.
The Ministry of Gender and Family has the mandate to facilitate the provision of social, psychological andlegal services to persons reporting deprivation of rights resulting from gender discrimination or violence, butthey do not have the investigatory power which further delays the justice to the victims of domestic violence.

VII. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN MALDIVES
Like in any other country, violence against women is a crime Maldives is struggling to deal with. It is aserious issue and often a hidden issue where the victims silently live in humiliation. Giving voice to the issue
is a first step in combating it, and the Domestic Violence Act, enacted on 23 April 2012, is a milestone in
making the existence of the issue in Maldives loud and clear. The creation of the Domestic Violence Act
paved way to establish stakeholders in combating violence in the Maldives. The Domestic Violence Act
defines certain acts conducted between individuals in a domestic relationship to be an act of domestic
violence. Section 3(a) of the Domestic Violence Act defines what constitutes such domestic relationship while
Section 4(a) lists the individual acts which, when conducted between two people, can be considered an act ofdomestic violence. A major outcome of the Domestic Violence Act is the introduction of “protection orders”
detailed in sections 7 and 8 of the Act. Under the Act, victims are able to request and obtain emergency andpermanent protection orders against the perpetrators.

VIII. CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Name, place and specific details have been omitted from the below-mentioned cases to ensure theconfidentiality of the victims.
1. A case filed by the Applicant against her husband for committing various domestic violence acts, at
the Family Court of the Maldives on 2017 for a protection order. According to the case report thehusband committed physical, psychological and verbal abuse along with intimidation and many otheracts and caused the children to witness the domestic violence against the Applicant. Here, the court
issued a protection order for a period of one year as the domestic violence acts committed against the
Applicant were proved by the witnesses’ statements and by the reports presented by the Maldives
Police Services stating that 2 incidents of violence against the Applicant by her husband were lodged
and investigated and sent to the Prosecutor General’s office for prosecution.
With regard to this case, it is noted that the perpetrator’s acts were reported to the relevant investigating
authority and are being investigated but sadly our records show that the perpetrators are not prosecuted.
15

Act No. 12/2016 (Criminal Procedure Act)

112

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
2. A case filed by the Prosecutor General against the Respondent at the Criminal Court for breaching
the Protection Order issued by the Family Court against the Respondent to avoid committing any act
against his ex-wife, that would suffice as a domestic violence act. He denied the charges against him.
To prove the case, the Prosecutor General presented the ex-wife, her father and sibling as witnesses,
but in their statements, they supported the Respondents’ stand. Hence, the Court decided that the
Respondent was not guilty of the charge.
In this case, it is evident from the case report that the witnesses, especially the father, favoured the
Respondent as he did not want the Respondent to be prosecuted with criminal charges as the child of the
Respondent is in the care of the ex-wife and if prosecuted, the child might suffer.
These case studies give us a clear indication that various forms of violence exist in Maldives and that also
indicate that there are very limited services available to the victims. The case studies also show thatperpetrators are rarely prosecuted or punished. Hence, they are not held accountable for their actions.
3. A case filed by the Prosecutor General at the Criminal Court of the Maldives, where the respondent
was reported by his wife, for hitting her and pushing her from a jetty. The respondent hit the wife’s
head, whereby the respondent’s wife fell onto a boat nearby and hit her mouth which rendered her
unconscious. It was proved by the medical reports that the respondent’s wife suffered severe injury
to her mouth and that her leg was injured by the respondent’s acts. It was decided that the respondent
was guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of MVR 200, as this was his first criminal offence.
This clearly is a case of violence against women which can be prosecuted under the Domestic Violence
Act, but the respondent was prosecuted under the Penal Code for battery. This case raised concerns among
the public and the Court was criticized for its judgment. But it is important to note that the court decides
cases based on the facts presented before it.

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS•

 evising and improving the legislative framework to facilitate the anticipated results, so that theRprosecution can prosecute under the relevant legislation to achieve the results from the specialized
acts such as the Domestic Violence Act.

•

Creating school and society-based awareness programmes across all age groups on respectful
relationships and responses to domestic and family violence.

•

The provision and availability of supportive housing models to assist victims of domestic and family
violence to find safety for themselves and their children.

•

Focus on long-term care of the victims, such as rehabilitation and reintegration, and measures todecrease the chances of reoccurrence of any type of further abuse against women.

•

Establish a good psychosocial support system at a national level.

113

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN MALDIVES
Ahmed Shuhad*

I. INTRODUCTION
Violence against women (VAW) is a crime that is prevalent in many countries. It is a highly complex
category of crime and may include very severe offences such as murder, rape and sexual assault. But it may
also include offences that are seen as less serious but have significant implications to victims and the society.
Domestic Violence (DV) is a type of violence that is often interchangeably used with VAW. Unlike VAW, DV
is defined by the offence and the relationship between victims and offender.
Maldives has also seen VAW become a national concern that requires immediate attention. Commonly
known statistics publicized in the Maldives on VAW suggest that 1 in every 3 women aged 18-59 may haveexperienced some form of physical or sexual violence. There are, undoubtedly, many reasons for thisphenomenon. An important dimension that can shed some insight into this problem is the level of tolerance
and intolerance towards women and girls in the Maldivian context. As such, this paper seeks to explore andexplain how debates about tolerance and intolerance can be used to understand and explain VAW in theMaldives.

II. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE MALDIVIAN CONTEXTIn Maldives, the first ever comprehensive study on violence against women carried out in 2007 revealed
that 1 in 3 women between ages of 15-49 have experienced some kind of physical or sexual abuse at somepoint in their lifetimes (Ministry of Gender and Family, 2007). This was the ‘shocking’ finding from this study.
And. like in many other countries, the various forms of violence against women (VAW) that are highly
prevalent in Maldives have since been recognized as a national problem. Since then, the phrase 1 in 3 has
become a powerful slogan for policy and practice change to improve the status of VAW.
Other findings from MSWHLE include:-

1 in 5 women aged 15-49 (19.5%), who had ever been in a relationship, reported experiencing physicaland/or sexual violence by an intimate partner.
Approximately 1 in 8 women aged 15-49 (13.2%) reported experiencing physical and/or sexual violenceby someone other than an intimate partner, since the age of 15.
Combining physical and/or sexual violence by partners and non-partners, since the age of 15, we findthat more than 1 in 4 women (28.4%) have experienced partner or non-partner violence, or both.
Approximately 1 in 8 women aged 15-49 (12.2%) reported that they had been sexually abused before
the age of 15, that is, that they had experienced childhood sexual abuse.

The study also revealed that among those women who have experienced violence, very few sought help
from formal services including the formal justice system. There may be several reasons for this, including
barriers in addressing their grievances through the formal justice system. In studies conducted on trust
towards key criminal justice system agencies, it has been shown that the public has very low trust andconfidence in the justice sector including the police and courts (UNDP, 2016).

III. CONCEPTUALIZATION OF TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE AND VAW
To begin with, it is useful to understand what tolerance and intolerance mean in such a social context.
The relation that is expressed by the words tolerance and intolerance may well be explained by the notionof attitudes and behaviours towards views that are not in line with what one believes. In the gender sphere,
therefore, this is related to what people believe the roles and responsibilities of men and women are in the*

Chief Superintendent of Police, Maldives Police Service, Republic of Maldives.

114

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
society. There are many factors that contribute to these beliefs that include, but are not limited to, religion,
culture, upbringing and media. These various factors help build a world view that generates intolerance
towards a group of people especially when they do not confirm to your notion of what is acceptable.
Indeed, the concept of equality itself needs to be conceptually redefined and related to how it will improvein a more holistic manner. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW) explains this when they state the following:a purely formal legal or programmatic approach is not sufficient to achieve women’s de facto
equality with men, which the Committee interprets as substantive equality. In addition, theConvention requires that women be given an equal start and that they be empowered by anenabling environment to achieve equality of results. It is not enough to guarantee women
treatment that is identical to that of men. Rather, biological as well as socially and culturally
constructed differences between women and men must be taken into account. Under certain
circumstances, non-identical treatment of women and men will be required in order to address
such differences. Pursuit of the goal of substantive equality also calls for an effective strategy
aimed at overcoming underrepresentation of women and a redistribution of resources andpower between men and women.
Eliminating gender inequality and discrimination are important for criminal justice, especially for accessto justice. As such there are important achievements to be gained from having mechanisms for good
governance, independence, impartiality and the credibility of the criminal justice system that can enable
these developments.

IV. CURRENT SITUATION
A. Legal
1. Domestic Violence Prevention Act 2012
In 2012 the much-awaited Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA 2012) was passed and enacted,
which offered a comprehensive legislative framework to tackle domestic violence. The term domestic
violence means different things in different legal jurisdictions. The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA)
2012 defines “domestic violence” as “acts by a perpetrator where such conduct harms, or may cause imminent
harm to, the safety, health or wellbeing of the victim(s), and provided the victim(s) and perpetrator are in adomestic relationship” (Domestic Violence Prevention Act, 2012, Article 4(a)). Domestic relationship is meant
to include:
1. Persons who are or were married to each other;
2. Persons who share or have recently shared the same residence;
3. Persons who are the parents of a child or a person who has or had parental responsibility for thatchild;
4. Persons who are family members related by consanguinity, affinity or marriage;
5. Persons who are domestic child caretakers or domestic workers; or
6. Persons who are in an intimate relationship.
Furthermore, the DVPA (2012) recognizes various acts as domestic violence. They are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Physical abuse;
Sexual abuse;Economic and financial abuse;
Impregnating the spouse, without concern for her health condition and against any medical advice torefrain from impregnation for a specified period;
Deliberately withholding the property of a person;
Intimidation;
Harassment;
Stalking.

This conceptualization of domestic violence in Maldives is very broad and covers offences that are115

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
attributed to the intolerance of women and their rights in the society. This progressive approach tocriminalizing domestic violence opens new challenges as the institutions that must be at the forefront ofprotecting women and assisting them with access to justice are tasked with a broad mandate. The Human
Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) stated in a 2005 study “men have become more conservative on
these sensitive issues related to women’s rights, or at least less certain, whereas women’s views, for the mostpart, have altered much less and in some areas have become more strongly supportive of women’s rights”(HRCM, 2013, p. 3). Comparing results from 2005 baseline data, the HRCM reports:
The current survey indicates a significant drop in support for women’s equality. In all seven areas
surveyed (inheritance, divorces, work, politics, etc.) fewer respondents than in 2005 considered women shouldhave equal rights with men. Support for women’s right to equality in custody matters, for example, has
dropped from over 90% among both rural and urban populations to around 60% (HRCM, 2013, p. 2)
B. Recorded Data
Like many other countries, and to similar proportions as several others, domestic violence is recognized
as a significant issue in Maldives. Until recently, it remained strongly hidden, and it is only recently that it
has become an issue of public and open debate. Today, domestic violence can be considered a highly focused
arena of violence against women (VAW).
Table 1. Reported cases to Family Protection Authority 2013-2016
Number of cases

2013
19

2014
149

2015
438

2016
642

Table 2. Present statistics based on reported incidents to the police

Domestic Violence reported
cases to the police

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

304

341

187

207

178

146

84

110

114

As can be seen from the above two tables, the reported incidents to both the FPA and the MPS havebeen increasing rapidly. In part, this is because of an increased awareness of domestic violence in thecommunity.
As can be seen from the following table, the majority of domestic violence victims in Maldives are women,
although the law covers violence against men too.
Table 3. Gender and age of victims of domestic violence
GenderFemaleMale

Under 18 years
125
87

Age

Over 18 years
433
83

Total
558
170

Number of domestic violence victims involved in reported cases for 201
C. Some Underlying Problems and Gaps
While the enactment of DVPA (2012) has allowed new avenues to provide support to victims, there areseveral issues that need further ratification. Some of them include the following:
1. The DVPA is a semi-criminal law in the sense that it only allows punishment if there is a violation of
the protection order issued under the law. The law itself does not provide a pathway to hold offenders
accountable within the criminal justice system for the offence of domestic violence.
2. While DVPA covers some elements of hate crimes when there is an existing domestic relationshipbetween offender and victim, the fact that there is no framework or law to criminalize hate crimes
116

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
make it difficult for the state to prosecute individuals for the underlying issues, which in many cases
is intolerance
3. The criminal justice system is yet to formalize emerging good practices such as restorative justice.
Domestic Violence offers a venue where restorative justice can be effectively applied, make theoffender accountable and empower the victims to move on from the situation. It will further allow
rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into the society.
D. Challenges to the Police and Criminal Justice System
One of the greatest challenges facing the criminal justice system, including the police, is the reluctance ofvictims to provide support to the investigation. This happens for many reasons but mainly because victims
are afraid to leave the violent situation in fear of either retaliation or fear of losing children. The fact thatsociety still sees VAW as a private matter and something that should not be talked about outside of thehome makes women, who are most often than not the victims of domestic violence, reluctant to seek help
either from the police or relevant other authorities.
Also, it is not uncommon for women to experience a cycle of revictimization within the justice system.
Many police officers and staff from criminal justice agencies still do not accept VAW or DV as a true crime;
rather they see this as a personal dispute. Because of this, inadvertently or not, victims get revictimized
within the system.
There are many emerging forms of VAW and DV that require urgent attention. Cyberbullying andcyberharassment, including sexual harassment and blackmail, are becoming common. The advances intechnology place police and other relevant agencies at a disadvantage as they tend to remain far behind thecriminals in technological development.

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Getting more accurate empirical data on prevalence rate: There is an urgent need for robust
primary research relevant to the current state of issues in Maldives. The most commonly referred toresearch in this area—the Maldives Study on Women’s Health and Life Experiences of 20071—while
useful for some policy and decision-making related to domestic violence in Maldives, it predates thedomestic violence legislation and is not based on the legal definition of domestic violence as used in
Maldives now. Data needs to be available disaggregated by variables such as gender, age and geography
as well as social demographic factors like victim-offender relations, etc.
2. Understanding organizational knowledge and attitudes: Key criminal justice agencies such as thepolice, courts and correctional system can influence how policy is actually practised. Acknowledging
that these agencies may have low trust from the public, it is important to understand how different
agencies actually contribute to resolving the abuse or revictimizing the victim. Capacity-building ofthese key agencies needs to be undertaken to ensure that policy is practised as envisioned in law.
Investments in victim support units (VSU), such as that of the Maldives Police Service and Prosecutor
General’s Officer, are highly important and required. Attention needs to shift from seeing victims as
only the person at the receiving end of the violence. Instead, a broader focus on victimization with an
acknowledgement of impact and implications to society and community should be given attention.
Thus, building resilient communities and community groups, involvement of community such as
through restorative justice programmes can have useful impact.
3. Improving legislative and regulatory framework review: The extent to which, and how, theexisting legislative and regulatory framework facilitates, obstructs or limits desired results needs tobe held more openly, and any revisions or amendments required must be brought as soon as possible.
Maldives does not have legal aid assured by legislation, and rehabilitative and reintegrative measures
are under-developed. Mechanisms such as restorative justice offer promising solutions but need proper
1 Emma Fulhu: Maldives Study on Women’s Health and Life Experiences (WHLE), Published by the Ministry of Gender and Family - ISBN
99915-95-01-5

117

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
legislative and regulatory mechanisms to be implemented.
4. Addressing various types of violence: Physical and sexual violence against women and children are
the most common forms of domestic violence, and these are some of the most heinous forms ofviolence experienced within the context of domestic violence. The current effort on combating violenceagainst these highly vulnerable victims needs to continue. But there are also other emerging crimes
and victim categories that have been observed and, hence, the ongoing efforts need to be inclusive.
Some of most noticed emerging issues are addressed in the Action Plan and includes:• T echnology facilitated domestic violence: (ab)use of technology in the commission of domestic violence(domestic violence in the digital era: harassing, stalking, blackmailing, threatening)• Domestic violence against and by those with mental health problems and persons with disabilities• Elder abuse and domestic violence (from financial crimes to violence)• Expatriate population and domestic violence: From sexual exploitation to slavery• Domestic violence against men• Domestic violence and extremism
References
Attorney General’s Office, & UNDP. (2014). Legal and Justice Sector Baseline Study. Attorney General’s Officeand the United Nations Development Programme in the Maldives.
CEDAW Committee. (2015). General Recommendation No. 33 (Women’s Access to Justice). CEDAWCommittee.
Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. Number 3/2012 (2012).
Emma Fulhu: Maldives Study on Women’s Health and Life Experiences (WHLE), Published by Ministry of
Gender and Family - ISBN 99915-95-01-5
Human Rights Commission of Maldives. (2011). Six Years On - The Rights Side of Life: The second Maldivesbaseline human rights survey.
Maldives Police Service. (2016, October 4). Crime Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.police.gov.
mv/#casestat
Ministry of Gender and Family. (2007). The Maldives Study on Women’s Health and Life Experiences: Initial
results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses to violence.

118

CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CRIMES MOTIVATED BY
INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION
Shahid Javed*

I. INTRODUCTION
Violent crimes resulting from intolerance and discrimination are not uncommon in Pakistan. While, on the
one hand, crimes against women such as ‘honour killing’, domestic violence resulting in severe injuries andeven murder and ‘stove burning’ have stemmed from gender-related discrimination, on the other, religious
intolerance has given rise to assaults on members of religious minorities and registration of blasphemy cases
against them. Thus, the crime pattern is marked with crimes motivated by intolerance and discrimination.
This paper aims at analysing the crimes motivated by religious intolerance and the response of the criminal
justice system. Faith based persecution is an ongoing phenomenon in Pakistan which has severely affected
the religious minorities of the country. Violence motivated by intolerance has been targeted ‘against all
religious minorities, including Ahmadis, Christians, Shia Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Parsis’.1According to a
recent report by Amnesty International, “state and non-state actors continued to discriminate against
religious minorities, both Muslim and non-Muslim, in law and practice”.2 This paper discusses how a weaklegal framework coupled with societal pressures and a lack of adequate law enforcement measures has
contributed towards such crimes.
A. Organization of the Paper
The first section of the paper traces the origins of Pakistan with a historical context. The ideology infavour of merging religion and politics was present since the birth of Pakistan and set forth the ground forcrimes motivated by religious intolerance. The second section discusses how the country’s legal framework
fails to offer adequate protection to religious minorities. It also outlines the societal pressures such as the riseof religious-political groups which have led to an increase in religious discrimination. The third section
outlines how, due to a lack of adequate law enforcement measures, the victims of such attacks are denied
justice. In this section the statistics of crimes motivated by religious intolerance will be analysed. An analysisof the criminal justice system (CJS) shall also be made outlining why it failed to respond effectively to thesecrimes. In the end some recommendations on how the situation/response can be improved shall be made anda conclusion shall be drawn.
B. Historical Context of the Creation of Pakistan its Religious Ideology
On 14 August 1947, Pakistan was founded as an independent nation state after achieving its independence
from India. Pakistan was based very much on the concept of a ‘Muslim homeland’. Whether Pakistan was
created for Islam or Muslims is a question which remains debatable to this day. Some ideologies of Pakistan
maintain that Pakistan was meant to create an Islamic state3 in the Indian subcontinent. Other ideologies
doubt this position and maintain that the primary purpose of Pakistan was to build a secular state forMuslims to escape dominance of Hindu rule. Ahmed in his book Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity
discusses that Pakistan meant different things to different people. For some it was theology; Pakistan wasseen as an Islamic country, a homeland where Muslims will enjoy religious freedom and will abide by thelaws based on the Quran and the Sharia. A famous slogan still chanted in Pakistan is Pakistan ka Matlab kya
La Illahal IllAllah, which translates to “What is the meaning of Pakistan? There is no God but Allah.” Forsome it was sociology; Muslims were concerned about preserving their culture and language and feared thatthey had little chance in a Hindu dominant society. For some it was economics; there was a fear that*

Deputy Inspector General of Police, Pakistan.
Farahnaz Ispahani, “Pakistan’s Descent into Religious Intolerance.” Hudson Institute, March 1, 2017. Available at: < https://www.hudson.org/research/13492-pakistan-s-descent-into-religious-intolerance>.
2
Amnesty International, “Amnesty International Annual Report 2016/17: Pakistan”, February 23, 2017. Available at: <https://amnesty.org.in/amnesty-international-annual-report-201617-pakistan/>.
3
Not to be confused with the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria. Refers to a state based on Islamic principles.
1

119

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
Muslims might not be able to succeed under the powerful Hindu commercial and entrepreneurial monopolies.
Yet for some it was an expression of a Hindu-Muslim confrontation which had been taking place for centuries
and posed a challenge to the idea of Muslims being dominated by Hindus.4 As such, there is still a debate
about the true ideology that resulted in the creation of Pakistan. However, despite the disagreements it isevident that the idea of Pakistan was associated very strongly, in one way or another, with a Muslim identity.
Despite the debate, there can be little doubt that Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had a visionof a secular Pakistan; a Muslim homeland which guaranteed minority rights. In his first Presidential Address
to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan (August 11, 1947), he famously said:“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any otherplace of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has
nothing to do with the business of the State… We are starting with this fundamental principle: that we are
all citizens, and equal citizens, of One State.”5
However a competing ideology advocated for the merging of Islam and politics through the establishmentof an Islamic republic governed by Sharia law.6 Eventually, the secular vision of Jinnah lost to the ideologyof the Islamic forces, composed of both traditional ulema and a number of Islamist parties, notably the
Jammat-i-Islami (JI). Their influence during the initial crafting of the Pakistani constitution injected religion(Islam) into the governing system of the country, an influence which deepened with time.7 The fact is thatover time Pakistanis have been made to believe that Jinnah intended to create Pakistan as a theocratic
state.8 Pakistan’s self-identification as an ‘Islamic Republic’ clearly speaks of the role religion has played in
shaping the Pakistani identity. This identity was further reinforced by the ‘islamization’ of Pakistan under
the Military Regime of Zia-ul-Haq.

II. DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW
The legal framework of Pakistan provides insufficient protection to religious minorities. Despite being asignatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 19489 and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, the legal framework fails to safeguard minority rights. As per the UDHR, Pakistan
is obligated to provide its citizens with the following rights:•

Article 1: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…’•

Article 2: ‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom(s) set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political…’•

Article 7: ‘All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protectionof the law…’•

Article 18: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in
public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.’

Pakistan has also ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in 2010.
Therefore, Article 1810 mentioned above is binding on Pakistan and its courts and constitution are required
4

Akbar Ahmed, Jinnah Pakistan and Islamic Identity (London: Rutledge, 1997), p. 109
Columbia.edu, “Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s first Presidential Address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan”, (August 11, 1947).
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_jinnah_assembly_1947.html>.
6
Fatima Zainab Rahman, “State restrictions on the Ahmadiyya sect in Indonesia and Pakistan: Islam or politicalsurvival?”, Australian Journal of Political Science vol. 49, no. 3 (2014): 408-422.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
UN General Assembly, “Universal declaration of human rights,” 1948,<http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/217(III)>10
Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom
5120

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
to provide and ensure religious freedom to its citizens, especially to its minorities, ‘who being equal citizens
of Pakistan are entitled to equal protection of law’11.
The constitution of Pakistan12 guarantees equality before the law for all its citizens and non-discriminationon the basis of race, religion etc. Article 20 of the Constitution states: “every citizen shall have the right toprofess, practice and propagate his religion”. Article 25 (1) provides, “all citizens are equal before law and areentitled to equal protection of law.” Article 5 states, “adequate provision shall be made for the minorities tofreely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures,” and article 33 fixes the state’s
responsibility in safeguarding the rights and interests of religious minorities. However, these provisions arein contradiction with some other provisions of the Constitution, as Article 2 declares, “Islam shall be the State
religion of Pakistan;” Article 31 states that it is the state’s duty to foster an Islamic way of life. Article 41(2)provides, “a person shall not be qualified for election as President unless he is a Muslim,” Article 91(3)provides that the Prime Minister shall also be a Muslim and Article 227 (1) states, “all existing laws shall be
brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part
referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions.”13
In view of the above, certain sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code(CrPC) were amended, and new penal sections for blasphemy and ‘other offences against religion’ were
promulgated with penalties ranging from imprisonment to death sentence. In 2009, the UN Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted that Pakistan’s “blasphemy laws may be used in a discriminatory
manner against religious minority groups”.14 Evidently section 295-A of the PPC criminalizes the “deliberate
and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan”; however,
the other religious offences in the PPC specifically protect Muslims, thus putting a limit to ‘freedom of
expression’ of non-Muslims. Section 295-B declares, “whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copyof the Holy Quran, or of an extract therefrom, or uses it in any derogatory manner, or for any unlawful
purpose, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life”.15 Section 295-C states, “whoever by words, either
spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, or insinuation, directly or indirectly,
defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death or imprisonment
for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”16 In 1990, the Federal Shariat Court17 made the death penalty
mandatory for conviction under Section 295-C18. It is pertinent to note that Section 298 of the PPC states
about protection of “the religious feelings of any person”, both Muslim and non-Muslim, yet it is so vague thatit criminalizes not only speech but any form of expression whether it directly displays hostility or not. Thus,
this section can be used and bent to the advantage of any complainant and is often misused against membersof minorities unjustifiably
Referring to the text of Section 298 of the PPC, a professor of law at Harvard University who specializes
in Islamic law commented, “as enacted into a statute, this law has wreaked havoc in Pakistan because theusual checks on its extreme consequences in old Islamic states do not exist in the modern context, andof thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, andfreedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship,observance, practice and teaching.”
11
All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief, “Discrimination against Religious Minorities
in Pakistan: An Analysis of Federal and Provincial Laws,” Available at: <https://appgfreedomofreligionorbelief.org/media/
RESEARCH-DOCUMENT-1-discrimination-against-religious-minorities.-Analysis.pdf >.
12
National Assembly of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan, The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
13
Ibid. The Constitution Of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, with the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981: as Amended up-toDate. Lahore: All Pakistan Legal Decision, 1982
14
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, United Nations, “International Convention on the Eliminationof all Forms of Racial Discrimination”, 16 March 2009, para 19. Available at: <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/
treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2fC%2fPAK%2fCO%2f20&Lang=en>
15
Pakistani.org, “Pakistan Penal Code: Act XLV of 1860”. Available at:<http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/1860/actXLVof1860.html>.
16
Ibid.
17
The Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan has the authority to examine and determine whether the laws of the country comply
with Islamic Sharia Law.
18
Federal Shariat Court, “PLD 1991 FSC 10 (Ismail Qureshi vs the Government of Pakistan)”, <http://federalshariatcourt.gov.
pk/5.html>

121

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
because the law is seen by some as government license for popular or mob violence against any person
alleged to have insulted Islam.”19 These legal gaps have enabled bigoted members of the Pakistani society tovictimize the minorities. Many innocent people from among minorities (Christians, Sikhs and Hindus andAhmadis) have been booked under the vaguely worded Blasphemy Law.20

III. DISCRIMINATION DUE TO SOCIETAL FACTORSAs discussed in the first section, since the birth of the country, a political ideology has borne roots whichmake religious minorities second-class citizens in their own country. Successive governments in Pakistan anddifferent political parties have used the Islamic ideological card to their own political end. Religious differences,lust for power and a race for material gains have made religion ‘explosive’ in the society. Coupled with highlevels of poverty and illiteracy, the masses seek refuge in religion and are sensitive to the call of clergy who
use them for their political motives. Over the last few decades, religious-political groups have grown in
power making life even more difficult for religious minorities.21
In 2011, a study sponsored by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) andconducted by the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD) concluded, “Pakistan’s publicschools and madrassas negatively portray the country’s religious minorities and reinforce biases which fuelacts of discrimination, and possibly violence, against these communities.”22 The negative attitude towards
religious minorities influences the way people think and affects various aspects of the society. In such anenvironment there is tremendous pressure on the criminal justice system to remain neutral and deliver
effectively in response to crimes motivated by religious intolerance. It was observed by the UN Special
Rapporteur on the judiciary on her visit to Pakistan in 2013, “judges have been coerced or pressured todecide against the accused, even without supporting evidence, and that lawyers, in addition to their reluctanceto take up such cases because they are afraid for their security, are targeted and forced not to represent
their clients properly”.23
A. The Case of Asia Bibi
The case of Asia Bibi demonstrates how the societal pressures from religious groups can lead to highly
unfavourable circumstances for religious minorities. In 2011, governor of Punjab Salman Taseer was murderedby his police bodyguard when he publicly spoke against the blasphemy law being unjust and in favour of an
accused Christian women (Asia Bibi who was accused of blasphemy). A Christian farm labourer, a 47-yearold mother of five, was sentenced to death for blasphemy in 2010, after she had angered fellow Muslim
workers by taking a sip of water from a cup. When the workers demanded she convert to Islam, she refused
which prompted a mob to later allege that she had insulted the Prophet of Islam.24 After remaining in prison
for 9 years, Asia Bibi was declared innocent by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 31 October 2018.25 The
decision of the court was not welcomed by the extremist religious elements who blocked roads, raised
processions in protest and openly uttered death threats to the judges followed by violent outbreaks on thestreets. By evening, “thousands of club-wielding demonstrators had blocked highways, burned tyres and19

Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, “Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Pakistan,” Whether
section 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) refers to any offence under religious law or Shari’a and, if so, the penalty underreligious law or Shari’a. January 30, 2002, PAK 38359.E. Available at: <http://www.refworld.org/docid/3df4be8e8.html>.
20
Farahnaz Ispahani, “Pakistan’s Descent into Religious Intolerance”, Hudson Institute, Mach 1st, 2017, <https://www.hudson.
org/research/13492-pakistan-s-descent-into-religious-intolerance>
21
Ibid.
22
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, “Pakistan’s Educational System Fuels Religious
Discrimination,” November 11, 2011, Available at: <https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases/pakistans-educationalsystem-fuels-religious-discrimination>.
23
Gabriela Knaul, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Addendum: Mission to
Pakistan” (Pakistan: UN Human Rights Council, 4 April 2013), Available at: <http://www.refworld.org/docid/51b9a0794.html> p.
56-61.
24
Harriet Agerholdm, “Asia Bibi: Husband pleads for family asylum in UK after blasphemy conviction overturned,” The
Independent, November 4, 2018. Available at:<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/asia-bibi-pakistan-asylum-theresa-may-uk-protests-blasphemy-supremecourt-a8616556.html>.
25
Memphis Barker, “Asia Bibi: Pakistan court overturns blasphemy death sentence,” The Guardian, October 31, 2018. Available
at: < https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/31/asia-bibi-verdict-pakistan-court-overturns-blasphemy-death-sentence>.

122

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
pelted police with stones in major cities including Islamabad and Karachi.”26 The actual publication of theruling was delayed for weeks after blasphemy campaigners “promised to paralyse” the country and kill thejudges if they did not uphold Bibi’s death sentence.”27 The Supreme Court was due to hear the case in 2016,
but delayed the trial after one of the judges resigned. After the havoc these religious fuelled protesters laidon the country, the lawyer representing the Christian woman fled the country for fear of his28 life and Asia
Bibi’s husband has pleaded for asylum from the UK, US and Canada.29

IV. DISCRIMINATION DUE TO LACK OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Considering the above scenario there is not much space for the police, prosecution and courts (mainorgans of CJS) to deter crimes motivated by religious intolerance and to bring offenders to justice andprosecute those guilty of such crimes speedily and fairly.
A. Lack of Authentic Data
The following figures represent crimes against religious minorities in the province of Punjab as per therecord of the Central Police Office Punjab (Lahore).30
Table 1: Crimes against Religious Minorities in the Province of Punjab
Cases Registered Where Either Minorities or their Place of Worship Were Targeted From
01.01.2016 to 30.09.2018
District
Total Cases
Cancelled
Untraced
Challenged
Under Inv.
Lahore301
20Gujranwala
2
0
0
2
0
1 Gujrat
100
10Sahiwal100
10Chakwal100
10Faisalabad
1
0
0
1
0
Total
9
0
1
8
0
Cases Registered under Blasphemy against Minorities From 01.01.2016 To 30.09.2018
District
Total Cases
Cancelled
Untraced
Challenged
Under Inv.
Lahore101002 Sheikhupura
1
0
0
1
0
Layyah
1
0
0
1
0
Total
3
0
1
2
0
Cases Registered Where Person of Other Sects or their Places of Worship Were Targeted from01.01.2016 to 30.09.2018
3
Nil
0
0
0
0
0
Cases Registered Where Accused of Blasphemy Cases Were Targeted From 01.01.2016 to 30.09.2018
4
Nil
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total
12
0
2
10
0
It is important to note, however, that the numbers reported in the aforementioned tables are misleading.
These numbers have been taken from the official data collected by the Central Police Office Punjab which
does not provide a true picture. According to reports by civil-society and non-governmental organizations,the actual number of crimes motivated by religious intolerance is much more substantial. For instance, the
26

Ibid.
Ibid.
28
BBC, “Asia Bibi: Lawyer flees Pakistan in fear of his life,” November 3, 2018, Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/
world-asia-46082324>.
29
BBC, “Asia Bibi Blasphemy Case: Husband pleads for asylum”, November 3, 2018, Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/
world-asia-46085577>.
30
Data collected from Statistical Officer, Central Police Officer, Lahore.
27

123

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
above figures depict that only three cases of blasphemy were registered against members of minorities from2016 to 2018 in the whole of Punjab (with NO case in 2017),31 while only one minority group (Ahmadis)
claimed that in the year 2017 two cases of blasphemy (case 1061/17 & 245/17)32 had been registered in
Lahore against their members. Similarly the official data notes that only four cases have occurred whereminorities or their places of worship have been targeted in 2017, while the report33 by only one minority
group (Ahmadi) claimed that four Ahmadis were murdered in four separate incidents, while two assault
attempts to murder were made on Ahmadis due to religious intolerance in 2017.
There are serval reasons for this disconnect between the actual numbers and the reported numbers.
Firstly, the crimes reported are often not classified as hate crimes but instead as general crimes. For
instance, if a member of a minority religious community is assaulted due to religious intolerance, that crime
is classified as a general assault, and not as a hate crime. According to Ahmadis (a religious minority), 260
Ahmadis have been murdered and 379 assaulted for their faith since 1984 in Pakistan without these crimes
being classified as ‘crimes motivated by religious intolerance’ in police records. Secondly, for small crimes
like assault without grievous harm, the victims of the crime motivated by religious intolerance are unwillingto come forward to seek redress against the perpetrators. This is in large part due to the lack of faith in thecriminal justice system. As a result, many of the religion-motivated crimes remain unreported andunprosecuted. Thirdly, there have been many reported instances in which the government officials havefailed to intervene in favour of the victim. There have been cases in which despite the victim making a claim
to a police official, the official report goes unfiled. According to the Pakistan International Religious Freedom
Report 2017, civil-society groups have expressed concern “that authorities often failed to intervene ininstances of societal violence against religious minorities, and police failed to arrest perpetrators of suchabuses.”34
Just as a quick reference, data from the fact sheet of ‘Violence Towards Religious Communities inPakistan’ by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom for the year 2013-14 is sharedbelow.35
Table 2: Statistics on Targeted Violence against Religious Communities in Pakistan
OVERALL ATTACKS
Number of Attacks
Shi’a54
Christians
22
Ahmadis10
Sufis
7
Hindus4
Sikhs
3
Other Groups
20
Total
122

31

July 2013 – June 2014CASUALITIES
Numbers Killed
Shi’a
222
Christians
128
Ahmadis10
Sufis
22
Hindus0
Sikhs
2
Other Groups
46
Total
430

Numbers Injured
Shi’a
Christians
Ahmadis
Sufis
Hindus
Sikhs
Other Groups
Total

289
185
1
59
1
0
238
773

Data collected from Statistical Officer, Central Police Officer, Lahore.
Daniel Mark, “A Report on Persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan; During the Year 2017” (Washington, D.C: USCIRF, 2018).
33
Ibid.
34
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, United States Department of State, “Pakistan: International Religious
Freedom Report,” (Washington, 2017), Available at:<https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/281276.pdf>.
35
UNSIRF, “Fact Sheet Pakistan: Violence Towards Religious Communities in Pakistan”, August 2014, <https://www.uscirf.
gov/sites/default/files/Pakistan%20Factsheet.pdf>.
32

124

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
Table 3: Examples of Types/Methods of Attacks
Targeted bombings
Targeted Shootings
Shi’a
11
Shi’a
Christians
1
Christians
Ahmadis0
Ahmadis
Sufis
3
Sufis
Hindus0
Hindus
Sikhs
0
Sikhs
Other Groups
4
Other Groups
Total
19
Total

29
5
4
3
0
1
6
48

Rapes
Shi’a
Christians
Ahmadis
Sufis
Hindus
Sikhs
Other Groups
Total

0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3

It is evident that the number of incidents reported by any independent private agency is far more thanthose compiled and updated by official police records in Punjab.
B. Ineffectiveness of the Criminal Justice System of Pakistan
The ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system of Pakistan is not limited to crimes motivated byreligious intolerance but transcends across all crimes. However, in the case of crimes motivated by religious
intolerance, the situation becomes even more glaring. Factors such as a weak judicial system, lack of effective
prosecution services, lack of capacity of law enforcement agencies, such as the police force, and the lack ofan effective witness protection programme, all contribute towards this ineffectiveness.
C. Weak Judicial System
In addition to a weak legal framework discussed in section II of this essay, Pakistan also suffers from aweak judicial system. The country’s judicial system has been for several years marred by excessive delays.
The judiciary in Pakistan is severely overworked as the number of judges has not increased with theincreasing population. Various Law Commissions established from time to time for reforming criminal justicesystem have unanimously pointed towards this issue. According to a Supreme Court report, there is one
judge for every 42,857 persons which does not match international standards by any means.36 With 90% of
the total litigation in subordinate courts, these courts are confronted with problems of insufficient courtrooms
and office equipment and shortages of judicial officers and support staff.37 According to civil-society
organizations, “lower courts often failed to adhere to basic evidentiary standards in blasphemy cases.”38 The
official crime statistics reflect that all nine cases registered for attack on religious minorities or their placesof worship are under-trial to-date. Not a single case has been decided in the court of law. Similarly, out of
three cases of blasphemy two are still being tried while one has been declared ‘untraced’. The recent
blasphemy case that got worldwide publicity (Asia Bibi) was decided after nine years and the accused was
declared not guilty. The accused remained in prison for 9 years despite being innocent.
D. Lack of Effective Prosecution Services
The District Public Prosecutor is the head of district prosecution and all work related to different courts
is distributed by him/her among prosecutors in a district.39 A public prosecutor has to guide the police ininvestigations, collection of evidence and prosecute offenders in courts of law. However, the country also
suffers from an ineffective prosecution services system and there is a significant gap of collaboration between
the prosecutor and the police. According to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, more than 65% criminal cases
do not end up in conviction in the province of Punjab alone.40 This is the result of weak and defective
investigation and deficient prosecution. It was further observed that no consistent Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) exist for cooperation between the police and prosecution during the investigation stage.
36
Dr Faqir Hussain, “Judicial System of Pakistan” (Islamabad: Federal Judicial Academy, May 2015). Available at <http://www.
supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/thejudicialsystemofPakistan.pdf>.
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.
39
Punjab Laws, “Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act 2006”, Available at: <http://punjablaws.gov.pk/laws/483.html>.
40
Supreme Court of Pakistan, “Civil Petition No. 1282 of 2014”, Available at: <http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/page.
asp?id=2022>.

125

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
E. Lack of Capacity of Law Enforcement Agencies
The lack of capacity issues of the law enforcement agencies such as the police force is also a major
impediment for an effective response toward the crimes committed. According to the US Department ofState (USDoS), there is a ‘weak criminal justice system’ in Pakistan, but the effectiveness of the police varies
by district, ranging from ‘good to ineffective’.41 The Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development And
Transparency (PILDAT) observes that Pakistani police lack operational capacity and professionalism.42 Mostof the officers conducting investigations are not abreast with modern techniques of evidence collection andpreservation. Low conviction rates reflect poor investigation of cases by police and highlight their capacity
and training issues. Additionally, SOPs and even rules are not followed during investigation, thus leaving
legal lacunas in cases. For instance, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, the blasphemy complaints
under section 295-C of the PPC should not be investigated by an officer below the rank of Superintendent of
Police. However, in practice this provision was rarely implemented.43
F. Lack of Adequate Witness Protection
The Pakistan criminal justice system also lacks an adequate witness protection programme, which is aserious concern for the effective implementation of the rule of law. Witnesses who withdraw their statements
or fail to appear before courts are very common in the criminal justice system of Pakistan. While a numberof factors can account for this, the absence of protection available to witnesses greatly exacerbates the issue.
In absence of an effective witness protection programme, people fear to testify against hardened criminals.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Response to Crimes Motivated by Intolerance
Considering that religious intolerance is so deep rooted in the country, it is safe to conclude that there isno quick and easy fix to the problem. However, several steps can and should be taken to improve thesituation. First, the government needs to align its national laws with international conventions which promotetolerance and religious freedom. The existing laws are clearly discriminatory in nature and do not offer an
effective framework for the protection of religious minorities. Pakistan as a signatory to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights should ensure that its domestic laws uphold the spirit of the declaration andall citizens of the country receive equal protection and right under the law.
The government should take steps to minimize the societal pressures. This would require collaboration
among various departments of the government. For instance, the Ministry of Education should ensure that
religious hate is not being taught at the education centres in the country and instead religious tolerance ispromoted through various academic curriculums. The law-enforcement agencies need to play a pro-activerole against mobs and protesters (such as those who took to the street in the aftermath of the Asia Bibi
acquittal), as they pose a major threat to peace and security of not only religious minorities but to the entire
Pakistani society.
The Pakistani government should ensure that there is a reliable database for crimes motivated byintolerance and discrimination. As the aforementioned discussion has shown, the numbers reported by theofficial authorities are misleading due to a number of factors. Therefore, effective steps need to be taken to
ensure that there is a reliable database starting from providing an environment in which the victims feel safe
to report their crimes to the law enforcement agencies. According to the European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights, “Victims of crimes motivated by bias and prejudice are often unable or unwilling toseek redress against perpetrators. As a result, many of these crimes remain unreported, unprosecuted and,
therefore, invisible.”44 Pakistan should combat hate crimes and address the fundamental rights violations by
41

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, United States Department of State, “Pakistan: International Religious
Freedom Report,” (Washington, 2016), Available at:<https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/281276.pdf>. p. 11.
42
Muhammad Ali Nekokara, “Policy Brief: Policy Recommendations for Reforms in Police,” (Islamabad: PILDAT, January 2016), p. 7.
43
Prof. Sir Nigel Rodley, (President), Prof. Robert Goldma, (Vice President), et. al., “On Trial: The Implementation of Pakistan’s
Blasphemy Laws,” (Geneva, Switzerland: International Commission of Jurists, November 2015). Available at: <http://www.
refworld.org/pdfid/565da4824.pdf>.
44
Michael O’Flaherty, “Ensuring justice for hate crime victims: professional perspectives,” (Luxembourg: European Union
Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2016) Available at <http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2016/ensuring-justice-hate-crime-

126

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
making the crime more visible and holding perpetrators accountable.
As discussed in the previous section, a weak judicial system, lack of effective prosecution services, lackof capacity of law enforcement agencies and the lack of an effective witness protection programme stand in
the way of victims achieving justice. These weaknesses in the criminal justice system need to be immediately
addressed. The current Law Minister has recently announced amendments in civil law to speed the pace ofpending cases to improve the efficiency of judicial system.45 Such amendments should be welcomed and in
addition, effective case-management system should also be implemented.
The government should dedicate resources for the capacity-building of prosecution services and the law
enforcement agencies. Both the prosecutors and the police force should be extensively trained in theirrelevant fields. Moreover, better and modern techniques of evidence collection and preservation should be
introduced to ensure that more reliable investigative material is collected. Greater collaboration between theprosecution services and the police should also be fostered to ensure that the victims are able to pursue theircases.
Measures need to be introduced for the Witness Protection Programme. The first legislation of its kindin Pakistan was the Sindh Witness Protection Act 2013. This law allows witnesses to establish new identities,
record witnesses testimony through video-link facilities without attending court in person, concealing theiridentities and provision of financial assistance to legal heirs in case a witness gets killed during the process.46
Such legislation should be enacted in other provinces as well. The government should ensure that suchprogrammes are properly implemented at the ground level with proper budget allocations and support staff.

VI. CONCLUSION
Violent crimes resulting from religious intolerance and discrimination are a common occurrence inPakistan. The ineffectiveness of Pakistan’s criminal justice system has serious repercussions for religious
minorities. A weak legal framework coupled with societal pressures and lack of adequate law enforcement
measures have all contributed towards such crimes. While religious persecution is severely deep rooted in
the social fabric of the country, the situation can be improved by introducing special measures dedicated totarget each of the aforementioned factors. The country’s laws must be brought in compliance with Pakistan’s
obligations under the signed and ratified international instruments on human rights. Focus should be laid on
capacity-building of law enforcement agencies and prosecution services. Police training facilities should be
immediately tasked to revise investigation modules to bring those in conformity with modern techniques ofdata analysis, collection of forensic evidence from crime scenes and preservation of evidence. These steps
are imperative to build the confidence of the public, especially minorities, in the CJS so that they report theircomplaints in case of any transgression against them.

victims-professional-perspectives>.
45
The News, “Judicial Reforms to be introduced,” September 14, 2018, Available at: <https://www.thenews.com.pk/
latest/368551-judicial-reforms-to-be-introduced-for-speedy-justice-law-minister>.
46
Provincial Assemble of Sindh, “Witness Protection Act 2013.” Available at: <http://www.pas.gov.pk/uploads/acts/Sindh%20
Act%20No.LI%20of%202013.pdf>.

127

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
Bibliography
Agerholdm, Harriet. “Asia Bibi: Husband pleads for family asylum in UK after blasphemy conviction
overturned,” The Independent, November 4, 2018. Available at: <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/
world/asia/asia-bibi-pakistan-asylum-theresa-may-uk-protests-blasphemy-supreme-court-a8616556.
html>.
Ahmed, Akbar. Jinnah Pakistan and Islamic Identity. London: Rutledge, 1997.
All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief. “Discrimination against
Religious Minorities in Pakistan: An Analysis of Federal and Provincial Laws”. Available at: <https://
appgfreedomofreligionorbelief.org/media/RESEARCH-DOCUMENT-1-discrimination-against-religiousminorities.-Analysis.pdf >.
Amnesty International. “Amnesty International Annual Report 2016/17: Pakistan”. February 23, 2017.
Available at: <https://amnesty.org.in/amnesty-international-annual-report-201617-pakistan/>.
Barker, Memphis. “Asia Bibi: Pakistan court overturns blasphemy death sentence,” The Guardian, October
31, 2018. Available at: < https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/31/asia-bibi-verdict-pakistancourt-overturns-blasphemy-death-sentence>.
BBC. “Asia Bibi Blasphemy Case: Husband pleads for asylum”, November 3, 2018. Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46085577>.
BBC. “Asia Bibi: Lawyer flees Pakistan in fear of his life,” November 3, 2018. Available at: <https://www.bbc.
com/news/world-asia-46082324>.
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, United States Department of State. “Pakistan: International
Religious Freedom Report.” Washington, 2017, Available at: <https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/281276.pdf>.
Columbia.edu. “Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s first Presidential Address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.”
August 11, 1947, Available at <http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_jinnah_assembly_1947.html>
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, United Nations. “International Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.” 16 March 2009, Available at: <http://tbinternet.ohchr.
org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2fC%2fPAK%2fCO%2f20&Lang=en>
Federal Shariat Court. “PLD 1991 FSC 10 (Ismail Qureshi vs the Government of Pakistan)”, <http://federalshariatcourt.gov.pk/5.html>
Flaherty, Michael O. “Ensuring justice for hate crime victims: professional perspectives.” Luxembourg:
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2016, Available at <http://fra.europa.eu/en/
publication/2016/ensuring-justice-hate-crime-victims-professional-perspectives>
Hussain, Dr Faqir. “Judicial System of Pakistan”. Islamabad: Federal Judicial Academy, May 2015. Available
at <http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/thejudicialsystemofPakistan.pdf>.
Ispahani, Farahnaz. “Pakistan’s Descent into Religious Intolerance.” Hudson Institute, March 1, 2017. Available
at: < https://www.hudson.org/research/13492-pakistan-s-descent-into-religious-intolerance>.
Ispahani, Farahnaz. “Pakistan’s Descent into Religious Intolerance”. Hudson Institute, Mach 1st, 2017, <https://www.hudson.org/research/13492-pakistan-s-descent-into-religious-intolerance>
Knaul, Gabriela. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Addendum:
Mission to Pakistan”. UN Human Rights Council, 4 April 2013, Available at: <http://www.refworld.org/
128

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
docid/51b9a0794.html>
Mark, Daniel. “A Report on Persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan; During the Year 2017”. Washington, D.C:
USCIRF, 2018.
National Assembly of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan. The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
1973.
Nekokara, Muhammad Ali. “Policy Brief: Policy Recommendations for Reforms in Police.” Islamabad: PILDAT,
January 2016.
Pakistani.org. “Pakistan Penal Code: Act XLV of 1860”. Available at: <http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/1860/actXLVof1860.html>.
Provincial Assemble of Sindh. “Witness Protection Act 2013.” Available at: <http://www.pas.gov.pk/uploads/
acts/Sindh%20Act%20No.LI%20of%202013.pdf>.
Punjab Laws. “Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act 2006”, Available
at: <http://punjablaws.gov.pk/laws/483.html>.
Rahman, Fatima Zainab. “State restrictions on the Ahmadiyya sect in Indonesia and Pakistan: Islam orpolitical survival?”, Australian Journal of Political Science vol. 49, no. 3 (2014).
Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board. “Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Pakistan,”January 30, 2002, Available at: <http://www.refworld.org/docid/3df4be8e8.html>.
Rodley, Prof. Sir Nigel., and (President), Prof. Robert Goldma, (Vice President), et. al., “On Trial: The
Implementation of Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws.” Geneva, Switzerland: International Commission ofJurists, November 2015. Available at: <http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/565da4824.pdf>.
Supreme Court of Pakistan. “Civil Petition No. 1282 of 2014”. Available at: <http://www.supremecourt.gov.
pk/web/page.asp?id=2022>.
The News. “Judicial Reforms to be introduced,” September 14, 2018. Available at: <https://www.thenews.
com.pk/latest/368551-judicial-reforms-to-be-introduced-for-speedy-justice-law-minister>
UN General Assembly. “Universal declaration of human rights”, 1948. <http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/
view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/217(III)>
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. “Pakistan’s Educational System Fuels
Religious Discrimination.” November 11, 2011, Available at: <https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/pressreleases/pakistans-educational-system-fuels-religious-discrimination>.
UNSIRF. “Fact Sheet Pakistan: Violence towards Religious Communities in Pakistan”, August 2014,<https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Pakistan%20Factsheet.pdf>.

129

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108

SRI LANKAN RESPONSE TO COMBATING CRIMES MOTIVATEDBY INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION
Ranga Srinath Abeywickrema Dissanayake*

I. INTRODUCTION
According to the main theme of the programme, which is the “Criminal Justice Response to crime
Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination,” I would like to share my experience and knowledge as a
judicial officer who served in the Sri Lankan Judiciary for the last 15 years. Experience gained, especially as
a Magistrate performing in various parts of the country, and knowledge enhanced by studying for the LLM
Degree at the University of Colombo on criminal Justice, has paved the path for addressing the main themeof the programme successfully. Therefore, I intend to present my presentation having studied concepts ofintolerance and discrimination, crime causation, various offences motivated by intolerance and discriminationin Sri Lanka and initiatives taken by Sri Lanka as a country to combat these offences.

II. INTOLERENCE AND DISCRIMINATION
A. Intolerance
The meaning of tolerance is defined in Article 1 of the UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance.
Thus, tolerance consists of respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of the cultures of ourworld, our forms of expression and the ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness,
communication and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Tolerance consists of harmony in difference.
It is not only a moral duty, but also a political and legal requirement. Therefore, intolerance can be interpreted
as “conduct that adversely and unfairly targets an individual or group on the basis of one or more of thefollowing actual or perceived characteristics: gender or gender identity, race or ethnicity, disability, religion,
sexual orientation, nationality or age1. I would like to add another characteristic to the above interpretation;that is the economic status of the people.
B. Discrimination
Discrimination is the opposite of the equal treatment principle. The principle of equal treatment shallmean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination, specifying thereafter that:• D irect discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than anotheris, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation• I ndirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion orpractice would put persons of a racial or ethnic origin at a particular disadvantage compared withother persons, unless:i) that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means ofachieving that aim are appropriate and necessary; orii) with regards to persons with a particular disability, the employer or any person or organization, is
obliged, under national legislation, to take appropriate measures in line with the principles in order
to eliminate disadvantages entailed by such provision, criterion or practice2.
People may be discriminated against because of their age, disability, ethnicity, origin, political belief, race,
religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, language, culture and on many other grounds. Discrimination,* Judicial Officer, Magistrate Court-Fort, Judicial Service Commission, Sri Lanka.
1
https://www.sandiego.edu/safety/reporting/hate-crimes/response.php
2
HOW TO DEAL WITH CASES OF DISCRIMINATION AND HATE AND INTOLERANCE CRIMES: PRACTICAL GUIDE:EDITED BY: Instituto de la Mujer y para la Igualdad de Oportunidades Condesa de Venadito.

130

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
which is often the result of prejudices people hold, makes people powerless, impedes them from becoming
active citizens, restricts them from developing their skills and, in many situations, from accessing work,
health services, education or accommodation.
The principles of equality and non-discrimination are laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR), “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”3. This concept of equality
in dignity and rights is embedded in contemporary democracy, so states are obliged to protect various
minorities and vulnerable groups from unequal treatment. Article 2 of UDHR enshrines freedom fromdiscrimination: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind”.

III. CRIMES MOTIVATED BY INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION
When studying crimes motivated by intolerance and discrimination, we can see those crimes can beinterpreted as hate crimes in general, which are criminal acts motivated by bias or prejudice towards
particular groups of people. Hate crimes therefore comprises two distinct elements:•

It is an act that constitutes an offence under criminal law; and•In committing the crime, the perpetrator acts on the basis of prejudice or bias.

Thus, the perpetrator of an intolerant or discriminatory crime selects the victim based on the victim’s
membership or perceived membership of a particular group. The group must share a common characteristicthat is immutable or fundamental, such as race, ethnicity, language religion, nationality, sexual orientation, orother characteristic.
A. Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Crimes
1. Racism
Any incident or crime which is perceived to be motivated because of a person’s race, or due to xenophobia,
can be identified as a closely related cause for racism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines xenophobia as“a morbid fear of foreigners or foreign countries”. Racism involves discriminatory or abusive behaviour
towards people because of their imagination of inferiority.
2.

Religion and Faith
This encompasses any incident or crime which is perceived to be motivated by a person’s faith or religion.
Freedom of religion and religious tolerance are basic values present in every country, acts of discrimination
based on religion have not yet disappeared. Religious intolerance is often linked with racism and xenophobia
particularly with Antisemitism and Islamophobia.
3.

Sexual Orientation or Gender-Based Hostility
Gender-related discrimination includes the discrimination of women. Domestic violence is a form of crimethat may be carried out by partners, relatives, careers or friends. A homophobic hate crime is any incident
or crime that is perceived by the victim, or any other person, to be motivated by a prejudice based onanother person’s sexuality, or perceived sexuality. Another targeted group is transgender or transsexual
people, whose gender identity is inconsistent or not culturally associated with their assigned sex. Discrimination
based on sexual orientation affects homosexual and bisexual people.
4.

Disability and Difficulty
Any incident or crime, which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated because ofa person’s disability can be interpreted as a hate crime. Poverty can also be considered as a disability in thiscontext. The definition of a disability hate crime would include anyone who was targeted as a result of hisor her disability or impairment, including those diagnosed with HIV.
B. Theory of Crime Causation behind Hate Crimes
According to the article submitted by Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor, on June 12, 2017 recognized3

Article I, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

131

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
four reasons that people commit hate crimes. Those are:• Thrill-seeking•

Defensive•

Retaliatory•

Mission offenders

When considering the above reasons, we can identify the rationale behind offenders who are committing
hate crimes. When studying the theories of crime causation, this type of criminal behaviour comes under thePsychological Theories of Crime Causation. This theory can be used to illustrate criminal behaviour of thiskind of perpetrators. They are failures in psychological development, have an overbearing or weak conscience,
inner conflict, insufficient moral development, and maternal deprivation with its concomitant failure of
attachment. Aggression and violence are learned through modelling and direct experience. Personality
characteristics of these criminals found that criminals do tend to be more impulsive, intolerant, andirresponsible than non-criminals. Such mental states relate to disorders as psychosis and psychopathy.

IV. BASIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK RELEVANT TO CRIMES MOTIVATED BY
INTOLERENCE AND DISCRIMINATION
By passing several conventions and resolutions, the United Nations has taken several measures to combat
crimes motivated by intolerance and discrimination. Most member countries ratified those conventions andare taking necessary measures to comply with those conventions by taking action through local legislation.
A. Conventions and Resolutions Adopted by United Nations (UN)•International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 21 December 1965.

•

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966.

•

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966.

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 18 December 1978.
•

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Voluntary Protocol, 13 December 2006.

•

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989.

•

Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, 16 November 1995.

•

 esolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on Measures to Combat Contemporary Forms ofR
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, 25 February 1997.

V. SRI LANKAN SITUATION OF CRIMES MOTIVATED BY INTOLERANCEAND DISCRIMINATIONFrankly, I am obliged to say that as a country we cannot be satisfied with the situation in Sri Lanka inthis regard. For the last three to four decades, we have experienced all forms of crimes motivated byintolerance and discrimination.
A. Crimes Relating to Racism
For almost three decades, the country was embroiled in an ethnic civil war. The Sri Lankan Civil War
was an armed conflict fought on the island of Sri Lanka. The conflict officially began on 23 July 1983, by aminority Tamil militant organization called the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) which fought tocreate an independent Tamil state called Tamil Eelam on the north and the east sides of the island. After a132

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
26 year military campaign, the Sri Lankan military defeated the LTTE in May 2009, bringing the civil war
to an end.
Though the war ended, the larger questions which led to the ethnic conflicts still remain unanswered.
After the war ended, the Sri Lankan government took some measures for finding solutions. In 2010, theLessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) was appointed by His Excellency President Mahinda
Rajapaksa to look back at the conflict Sri Lanka suffered, as well as to look ahead towards an era of healing
and peace to build the country. The Report and recommendations of the above Commission were handed
over to the President Mahinda Rajapaksa in November 2011. But those recommendations have not been
implemented. Therefore, my personal view is that we were not able to find concrete solutions to thecountry’s ethnic conflict that would satisfy all parties.
The World Bank’s study paper on “The Root Causes of the Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka” explained theroot causes for the ethnic conflict as follows:
The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka has many root causes and consequences that are closely inter-linked.
However, given its complexities, it should not be assumed that these causes are part of linear historical
processes where one event led to another. Often many of the issues that may be regarded as root causes
arose within a single but extended context and equally as often, simultaneously. It is primarily within thecontext of ethnic politics that language and education policy can be located. However, for discussion purposes
it is necessary to separate these issues as clearly identifiable themes that would emerge in any analysis of
the Sri Lankan conflict. In general, these themes can be broadly identified as:• Ethnic politics and the interpretation of the past;• Politics of language;• Politics of education; and• Other factors, including employment and land.4
It shows the aforementioned causes having close relationships with intolerance and discrimination.
B. Crimes Relating to Religion and Faith
In the past six years, over 300 religion-related incidents of violence have taken place in the country.
Communal violence is not a new phenomenon in the country. Throughout history there have been many
incidents of communal violence among the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim ethnic groups. However, in the postconflict era, religious violence has become very common between the Sinhala and Muslim ethnic groups.
Sri Lanka is a multi-religious country where Buddhists (71%), Hindus (13%), Muslims (9%) and Christians(7%) have lived in peace and harmony for over 1,000 years. However, in the post-conflict era (after 2009)
religion-related violence between Sinhalese and Muslims has become very common. There have been anumber of incidents reported in the past. In March 2018, the violence that took place in Kandy (Digana) is
one of the recent communal clashes between the Sinhala and Muslim ethnic groups. Rioting in Kandy began
in Udispattuwa and Teldeniya, later spreading to Digana, Tennekumbura and other areas.
At least two people have been killed and eight others injured in these anti-Muslim riots and a lot of
properties were destroyed. The government blocked Facebook and other social media services in an effort
to quell the violence.
1.

Sri Lankan Legal Framework against Crimes Related to Religion and Faith(a) Constitution
The following Articles in the Sri Lankan Constitution are relevant to religious freedom:•

4

Article 9
The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be theduty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana (the teaching of the Buddha), while assuring
to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSRILANKA/Resources/App1.pdf

133

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108•

Article 10
Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to haveor to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

•

Article 12(2)No citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, politicalopinion, place of birth or any such grounds.

•

Article 12(3)No person shall, on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex or any one such grounds, be
subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to access to shops, public
restaurants, hotels, places of public entertainment and places of public worship of his own religion.

•

Article 14(1)(e)Every citizen is entitled to the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either inpublic or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching.

•

Article 27(6)The State shall ensure equality of opportunity to citizens, so that no citizen shall suffer any disabilityon the ground of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion or occupation.

(b) Penal CodeThe Penal Code of Sri Lanka in 1885 (updated several times since then) ‘Offences Relating to Religion’:•Section 290
Whoever destroys, damages, or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any classpersons, with the intention of thereby insulting the religion or insult the any class of persons or withthe knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage, or defilement
as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

•

Section 290A
Whoever does any act, in or upon, or in the vicinity of, any place of worship or any object which is heldsacred with intent to or in veneration by any class of persons, with the intention wounding thereligious feelings of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely toconsider such act as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

•

Section 291
Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance ofreligious worship or religious ceremonies shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

•

Section 291A
Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any
word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that
person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

•

Section 291B
Whoever, with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of
persons, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, insults or attempts to insult
the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

•

Section 292
Whoever with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any

134

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that thereligion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place of worshipor on any place of sepulchre or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites, or as adepository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or causes
disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, shall be punishedwith imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or withboth.
(c) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act, No. 56 0F 2007
Sri Lanka is a Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which was adopted by theGeneral Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976: andwhereas Sri Lanka has acceded to the aforesaid Covenant on 11 June 1980 and subsequently enacted the act
No 56 of 2007 to give effect to those civil and political rights referred to in the aforesaid Covenant.
Sections 2 and 3 of the Act state follows:•

Section 2
Every person shall have the right to recognition as a person before the law.

•

Section 3(1) No person shall propagate war or advocate national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
(2) Every person who—(a) attempts to commit;(b) aids or abets in the commission of; or(c) threatens to commit,
an offence referred to in subsection (1), shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
(3) A person found guilty of committing an offence under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section
shall on conviction by the High Court, be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term notexceeding ten years.
(4) An offence under this section shall be cognizable and non-bailable, and no person suspected or
accused of such an offence shall be enlarged on bail, except by the High Court in exceptional
circumstances.

According to the above legal provisions in Sri Lankan law, the country is fully equipped to combat crimes
motivated by intolerance and discrimination. Sufficient laws are available for giving maximum sentences tooffenders who commit the above crimes. We can satisfy the Sri Lankan legislative response in combating theabove crimes but there are many problems with the implementation process. For instance, recently, somenewspaper articles revealed that most of the communal violence took place in the presence of Sri Lankan
police and forces.
C. Gender-Based Crimes
1. Key Findings of a Survey Done by the Statistics Department of Sri Lanka in 2016 Regarding Domestic
Violence of Sri Lanka revalence of domestic violence: In Sri Lanka, 17 percent of ever-married women age 15-49 have
• P
suffered from domestic violence from their intimate partner.
 orms of domestic violence: Two percent of ever-married women who suffered from domestic violence,• F
experience domestic violence daily.
 ifferentials of domestic violence: Prevalence of domestic violence by an intimate partner increases• Dwith the age of the women. Urban residents also reported the highest percentage of domestic violence(20 percent). Kilinochchi and Batticaloa districts have the highest level of domestic violence (50 percent).
Ever married women who belong to the lowest wealth quintile and those with primary education
reported the highest percentages in domestic violence (28 and, 30 percent respectively).

135

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108•

Support for domestic violence: Among women who suffered from domestic violence, only just over one
fourth of women (28 percent) have sought help, with three fourth of them (75 percent) seeking help
from their family members, 27 percent from friends or neighbours and only 18 percent seeking help
from the police. Half of the ever-married women age 15-49 (50 percent) indicated knowledge about the
Sri Lanka Women Bureau to combat violence, while 26 percent mentioned mid-wives and Women Help
Line5.

Prevention of Domestic violence Act No 34 of 2005 (PDVA) was unanimously passed by the Sri Lankan
parliament on 9 August 2005. At the time this Act was introduced, Sri Lanka made a commitment to deal
with gender violence and thereby honour its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). However, it has been observed that,
initially, PDVA has been enacted as gender-neutral legislation. Though PDVA can be considered as genderneutral legislation, it is important to identify why the Sri Lankan government intended to enact this type oflegislation and application of act in the present situation. According to available resources, the following facts
have been taken into account by the government when introducing the PDVA;•

Insufficiency of existing criminal and civil laws for the protection of women from various kinds ofdomestic violence•Reported numbers of domestic violence have been increasing, and specific legislation to address thisissue was required.

•Protection of women from domestic violence came into focus as an internationally recognized issue asa result of the demands made by international organizations pressuring states to address this issue.

Considering all these facts, the parliament of Sri Lanka enacted the PDVA.

VI. CONCLUSION
Sri Lanka has ratified international conventions and enacted local legislation in line with the international
conventions and treaties. It has taken steps to protect the victims from crimes motivated by intolerance anddiscrimination. That response towards combating the above crimes is much appreciated, but drawbacks of
implementing procedures should be reduced and worked out to accommodate more practical approaches forfulfilling the objectives of the enacted laws.

5136

http://www.statistics.gov.lk/social/DHS_2016a/Chapter13.pdf

CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CRIME MOTIVATED BY
INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION
Waruna Jayasundara*

I. INTRODUCTION TO INTOLERANCE CRIMES IN SRI LANKA
Sri Lanka is an island situated in the Indian Ocean with a population of nearly 21.44 million which
comprises three main ethnic groups, namely Sinhala, Muslims and Tamils. The ethnic distribution of thecountry is 74.9 % Sinhalese, 15.7 % Tamils and 9.2 % Muslims. The Sinhalese history draws back more than2500 years, and later the Tamils migrated from the Southern parts of India. It is presumed that the Muslims
arrived during the last few centuries from the Arabian Gulf region as traders. At present there are no
intolerance crimes prevailing in Sri Lanka except for few incidences that occurred during the last few years.
In June 2014, a tense situation developed between the Sinhalese and Muslims in the Aluthgama area in theSouth Western part of Sri Lanka due to an issue involving a Muslim shopkeeper abusing a male Sinhaleseminor and, later, the assault of a Buddhist monk by three Muslim youths. As a result of the clashes between
the Sinhalese and Muslims, four were killed and many were wounded. It was reported that 8000 Muslims
and 2000 Sinhalese were displaced, and many shops, houses, mosques and factories were destroyed.
The most recent intolerance crime which was reported was from the Digana area which is situated in
the Central Province of Sri Lanka. In March 2018, a Sinhalese lorry driver was brutally assaulted and killedby drunken Muslim youths. It left many shops in the area damaged and burnt down by angry Sinhalese fromsurrounding villages. Other than the violence between Sinhalese and Muslims, there were isolated incidents
where Christian religious places were attacked. As per the National Christian Evangelical Association of Sri
Lanka (NCEASL), there were 52 incidents of religious violence against Christians or Christian places ofworship since January 20151.
A. History, Root Causes and Trends of Intolerance Crimes in Sri Lanka
A deep analysis into the reported intolerance crimes in Sri Lanka reflects that all incidences are connectedwith the Sri Lankan history starting with colonization, introduction of new religions and expansion of minority
settlements on the Island. In general, the majority Sinhalese are a peace-loving community deeply influenced
by the philosophy of Buddhism and guided by four sublime states of mind which are Love or Loving-kindness(metta), Compassion (karuna), Sympathetic Joy (mudita) and Equanimity (upekkha). Prior to colonization by
the Portuguese, Dutch and British, Sri Lanka was an agriculturally rich self-sustained Buddhist country. The
colonial masters destroyed the agricultural-based economy of Sri Lanka and adopted their policy of “Divide
and Rule”. This targeted policy side-lined the majority Buddhist Sinhalese and all comforts were rendered tominority Tamils and Muslims. The Buddhist religion and its religious places were systematically eliminated,
and Christianity was introduced by the Colonial masters. This intimidated the majority Buddhist Sinhalesecommunity which is all well connected to the present religious sentiments in Sri Lanka. Then the Arabic
Muslim traders who arrived in Sri Lanka expanded their settlements along the Southern and South Western
Coastal belt threatening the land ownership of majority Buddhist Sinhalese.
The present global trends such as the Islamic State (IS) and the “War on Terror” have aligned Sri Lanka
with the international community to fight against Islamic terrorist sentiments. This has also made an indirect
impact on the intolerance crimes committed against the minority Muslims in the country. As reported, theChristian pastors on the other hand keep spreading Christianity among the poorest in rural parts of Sri
Lanka, agitating the majority Buddhist Sinhalese. Therefore, an analysis of the above-noted historical factors,
root causes and current trends reveals that all are well connected with the isolated crimes motivated against
the minority religions due to intolerance and discrimination.

* Director in Charge, Counter Terrorism and Investigation Division, Sri Lanka Police, Sri Lanka.
1
Shamara Wettimuny, Religious violence in Sri Lanka: A new perspective on an old problem, http://www.ft.lk/article/617872/
Religious-violence-in-Sri-Lanka:-A-new-perspective-on-an-old-problem accessed on 20 October 2018.

137

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
B. Nature and Types Intolerance Crimes in Sri Lanka
An analysis into the reported intolerance crimes in the country depicts that the majority are in the formof vandalism, theft, intimidation and do not constitute serious crimes such as murder, gang rape, robbery etc.
During the Aluthgama area incident in June 2014, which mainly targeted Muslims, 153 businesses and 23
houses were damaged. As further revealed, 207 houses were partially damaged, and 73 vehicles wereattacked. According to the police, some minor damages and thefts were also reported2. At the recently
reported Digana area incident in March 2018, 27 Muslim owned shops, businesses and several houses were
set on fire3. In cases involving attacks on Christian installations, threats, intimidation and ‘administrative
restrictions’ have been used against them. There was no serious physical harm committed against theChristian pastors and followers in recent times. An analysis reveals that the hidden motives behind most of
the violent acts against Christian movements were mainly due to the opposition against their religious
conversions.

II. LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES AGAINST INTOLERANCE CRIMESThe earlier legislative approach against the intolerance crimes in Sri Lanka was to exhaust the legal
provisions contained in the Penal Code of Sri Lanka, which was enacted in 1883. The offences relating to
religion are stated from section 290 to 292 of the Penal Code, and in cases of more serious intolerance crimes,
such as murder, rape and robbery, are also covered under the same code. Section 290 is relevant to “injuring
or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class”, which carries a punishment of
imprisonment of either description for a period up to two years with fine or with both. Section 291 describes“disturbing a religious assembly”, which carries a prison term up to one year. Section 291 A deals with“uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings”, which consists of a prison term extended
up to one year. Section 79(2) of the Police Ordinance of Sri Lanka also provides space for thwarting hatespeech indirectly when it says that “Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour which is intended to provoke a breach of the peace or
whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence under this section.” Thelegal structure which deals with these offences commences with police investigations and reporting facts tothe courts followed by filling charges through the plaint.
An analysis on the above-noted legislative approaches on intolerance crimes reveals that their scope andpunishments are very much limited and does not cover sensitive and well-orchestrated intolerance anddiscriminatory crimes. Therefore, the enactment of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) Act in 2007 was an effective legal approach compared to earlier initiatives. Section 3 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act of 2007 reproduced Article 20 of the ICCPR
and prohibits the advocacy of ‘religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence’. It also gives the High Court jurisdiction to try and punish offenders. This initiative consists of theseparate offence approach and the penalty enhancement approach. Earlier the intolerance crimes were also
included within the general Penal Code along with all other crimes, and the penalties were not adequate
enough to address the gravity of the problem. However, the present ICCPR Act No 56 of 2007 is separate
legislation orchestrated specifically to address the intolerance crimes and carries severe punishment.
However, human rights defenders criticized its lack of enforcement against hate speech when it is alreadyencrypted within the existing ICCPR Act of 20074.

III. EFFECTIVE MEASURES ADOPTED TO INVESTIGATE, PROSECUTE AND
ADJUDICATE INTOLERANSE CRIMES
A. Types of Useful Evidence Required to Prove Intolerance Motive
The most important aspect in an investigation involving an intolerance crime is to gather the crucial
evidence connected to the intention of committing the intolerance crime and its physical components. The
intention of an ordinary crime may be due to personal hatreds, sudden provocation, rivalry etc. However,2

Waruni Karunarathne, Economic Cost Of The Aluthgama Incident, http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2014/06/29/economiccost-of-the-aluthgama-incident/ accessed on 20 October 2018.
3
Financial Times, Digana turns divisive, <www.ft.lk>, accessed on 20 October 2018.
4
Gehan Gunatilleke, Hate Speech in Sri Lanka: How a New Ban Could Perpetuate Impunity, < http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/hatespeech-in-sri-lanka-how-a-new-ban-could-perpetuate-impunity/> accessed on 20 October 2018.

138

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
the intolerance crimes are intended or motivated mainly by ethnicity, religion, race and tend to be violent innature such as assault, intimidation, vandalism etc.
In an effective investigation of an intolerance crime, it is important to gather evidence pertaining totelephone interceptions, emails, social media, public speeches and interviews which led to the commission ofcrimes. It is also ideal to assign a separate group of investigators with specialists such as IT experts, digitalforensic experts, and lawyers to investigate intolerance crimes.
B. Measures to Encourage Victims and Witnesses to Report and Cooperate with Criminal Justice
Authorities
In Sri Lanka the victims and witnesses are reluctant to report and cooperate with criminal justiceauthorities due to various reasons.
The main reason is the majority of the population has lost theirconfidence in the criminal justice system. The police have somewhat lost public confidence and have been
criticized by the media and general public for their short comings. The judiciary system on the other handmanaged to keep its credibility, but the conclusions of its cases are sometimes time consuming. Therefore,
it is high time for all concerned parties in Sri Lanka to rebuild the lost confidence on the criminal justicesystem and to encourage victims and witnesses to corporate with criminal justice authorities, especially incases involving intolerance crimes. The following are some of the measures that can be taken in this regard:
1.

Witness Protection Measures
It is worthwhile to note that Sri Lanka has introduced the Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses
Act, No. 04 of 2015 which provides for the establishment of the National Authority for the Protection ofVictims of Crime and Witnesses. The main objective of this Act is to strengthen the course of administrationof justice by identifying a proper legal framework to protect the rights of the victims of crime and witnesses.
In cases involving intolerance crimes, it is of paramount importance to protect the victims and witnesses ofcrimes since the majority of such crimes are committed by the majority of the population or the parties in
power. In reality, there are no known cases where the provisions of victim protection act have been adopted
to safeguard the victims of intolerance crimes in Sri Lanka.
2.

Adequate Assistance for Victims and Their Communities
The cost of litigation in Sri Lanka has significantly increased during recent times, and it has become
impossible for an average citizen to retain a highly competent legal representation. Therefore, in cases
where the affluent are involved with committing intolerance crimes, the minority victims and witnesses arelack proper legal assistance. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to provide adequate assistance forvictims and their communities. It is commendable to note that the Legal Aid Commission of Sri Lanka is
playing a vital role in providing legal assistance for victims of crimes.
3.

Measures Adopted to Strengthen the Security of the Victims of Crimes
It is worthwhile to note that the Sri Lanka Police established a separate Victims Protection Divisionin 2017 to address the protection issues of the victims of crimes. Therefore, any victim who has been
threatened or intimidated in intolerance cases can make a complaint and seek assistance of the respective
Police Division. However, it is recommended to improve and establish a mechanism to protect the victims
from identification.
4.

Measures to Strengthen the Mutual Trust and Relationship among Opposing Parties
In Sri Lanka a majority of Sinhalese are against the intolerance crimes and are living harmoniously withthe two other communities. It is only a selective group of people who are creating tense and uncomfortablesituations whenever there is a minor incident involving a minority ethnic group. Therefore, it is important
to strengthen the mutual trust and religious harmony among the three ethnic groups in Sri Lanka to preventthe reoccurrence of intolerance crimes which have taken place in Aluthgama (2014) and Digana (2018) areas
causing immense property damages.

IV. EFFECTIVE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS OF INTOLARANCECRIMES INCLUDING DELIVERING PROPER INTERVENTIONSThere are few offenders who are still in remand custody for causing intolerance crimes in the Kandy area
during March 2018. They were charged under the new ICCPR Act of 2007 where bail has to be obtained139

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
from the High Court. The offenders in the Aluthgama incident in June 2014 were released from remandcustody, and now some of them are facing trial. It is not clear whether authorities have taken due care for
effectively treating the offenders of the above noted two incidents. Further evidence of proper intervention
to correct the bias and discriminatory motives of the perpetrators were not documented as required.
Therefore, it is high time for all relevant parties to have timely interventions and initiate effective treatment
mechanisms for offenders of intolerance crimes.

V. CONCLUSION
As elaborated above, Sri Lankan authorities should overcome shortcomings and have a proper andeffective criminal justice response mechanism to address the intolerance crimes in its journey towards
making Sri Lanka the “Wonder of Asia”.

140

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS

Group Workshop Sessions
Group 1

THE CHALLENGES AND BEST PRACTICES TO ENCOUNTERCRIMES MOTIVATED BY INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members
Advisers

Mr. Ahmed Shuhad
Mr. Jimmy Puieki Onopia
Ms. Rana Fujita
Mr. Win Myint Zaw
Mr. Tufail Ahmend
Mr. Teruhide Numamae
Prof. Takuya Furuhashi
Prof. Junichiro Otani
Prof. Masahiro Yamada(Maldives)(Papua New Guinea)(Japan)(Myanmar)(Pakistan)(Japan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryGroup 1 explored challenges faced by the participating countries in combating crimes motivated byintolerance and discrimination (hereinafter, “intolerance crimes”), as well as best practices to respond to suchcrimes. Recognizing that gender-based violence is a common problem in all countries, the group reported
that some countries face unique intolerance crimes (such as those related to ethnicity, political ideology,
sorcery and tribal conflict). The group offered recommendations to enhance the response to intolerance
crimes, stressing the importance of establishing legal frameworks to overcome intolerance crimes.
There are a number of underlying problems which limit the ability of criminal justice authorities to
respond to intolerance crimes. These problems include: the lack of specific legal frameworks, making it
difficult to prosecute and impose appropriate sentences; lack of recognition by some within criminal justicesystems that violence against women (VAW) and domestic violence (DV) are crimes; the prevalence ofrevictimization; social stigma against victims of abuse; lack of gender sensitivity; and lack of skilled humanand financial resources.
To respond to these problems, specific recommendations were offered in reference to the following
categories: (1) legal framework and political will; (2) human resources and staff training; (3) monitoring andreporting of intolerance crimes; (4) inclusion of victims’ perspectives in policymaking; and (5) public awarenessand access to victim support services. Further, it was noted that social barriers—such as socio-culturalbeliefs, attitudes toward domestic violence, lack of awareness of legal rights and options, and fear of
retaliation—weaken efforts to counter intolerance crimes.
Group 1 stressed the importance of establishing legal frameworks to overcome intolerance crimes. Eachof the countries participating in the group relied on international conventions, constitutional provisions, penal
codes, and domestic violence legislation. Several countries have established national action plans to respondto intolerance crimes, while others have adopted specific legislation focused on vulnerable groups in need ofprotection.

141

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 108
Group 2CRIMES MOTIVATED BY INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION:
PROBLEMS AND THEIR RESOLUTION
Chairperson
Mr. Andre Lopes Lasmar(Brazil)
Co-Chairperson
Mr. Shahid Javed(Pakistan)
Rapporteur
Mr. Waruna Sanjeewa Ekanayake Jayasundara(Sri Lanka)
Co-Rapporteur
Ms. Shizu Ichihara(Japan)Members
Mr. Istam Rustamovich Astanov(Uzbekistan)
Mr. Takuro Himeda(Japan)AdviserProf. Ryo Futagoishi(UNAFEI)

Report Summary
The members of Group 2 conducted a comprehensive review of the victim and witness protection
measures and legislative approaches to addressing intolerance crimes in the participating countries. Notingthat intolerance crime is a global problem, each country reported challenges, particularly in terms of publicawareness of victim and witness protection measures, lack of public confidence in the effectiveness of suchmeasures, and lack of public and professional understanding of laws enacted to counter intolerance crimes.
The group’s analysis focuses on intolerance crimes and responses in all five participating countries. While
the specific forms of intolerance crime and the target groups of these crimes vary from country to country,
the group agreed that intolerance crimes are a global problem. Target groups include religious minorities,
immigrants, racial minorities, the LGBT community, indigenous communities, among many others.
The group’s review of key measures taken to counter intolerance crimes focused on legislative measures
to enhance victim and witness protection and legislative measures to criminalize or enhance punishment of
intolerance crimes. Regarding victim and witness protection, the challenges identified include: (1) the lack of
victim and witness protection programmes in some countries, (2) lack of public awareness of victim andwitness protection measures, (3) lack of faith in the effectiveness of such measures, resulting in less cooperationfrom the public in law enforcement investigations, and (4) insufficient human and financial resources.
From the perspective of legislative measures to criminalize or punish intolerance crimes, some countries
have elected to create new substantive offences to criminalize intolerance crimes, while others have opted
for penalty enhancement. Challenges identified include (1) lack of understanding of the new laws andreluctance to prosecute, (2) lack of sentencing parameters for judges, and (3) restrictive definitions of protectedgroups.

142

171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼ PAPERS
Group 3

BEST PRACTICES FOR SUPPORTING VICTIMS OF CRIME MOTIVATED BY
INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

AdviserMr. Ranga Srinath Abeywickrema Dissanayake
Mr. Kotaro Kadowaki
Mr. Hai Ngoc Nguyen
Ms. Raufa Haidar
Mr. Koji Tamada
Mr. Salvador Mamauag Trono Jr.
Mr. Kodir Voithanovich Askarov
Prof. Mika Kitagawa
Prof. Nozomu Hirano
Prof. Hidenori Ohinata(Sri Lanka)(Japan)(Viet Nam)
(Maldives)(Japan)(Philippines)(Uzbekistan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Report SummaryGroup 3 reviewed the current situation of intolerance crime in the participating countries and identified
best practices to support victims. Intolerance crimes target persons and groups based on ethnicity, race,
disability, religious beliefs, etc. and include gender-based violence. To counter these crimes, the groupstressed the need to protect victims and witnesses throughout all stages of the criminal justice process.
In response to intolerance crimes, a number of approaches used in various jurisdictions were reported:
legislative measures to protect victims and witnesses, special laws for gender-based violence, the creation of
special victim and witness protection agencies and specific police units for gender-based violence, andmeasures to protect victims and witness throughout the judicial process, including when giving testimony.
While victim and witness protection measures do encourage cooperation with law enforcement authorities,
the group found that cooperation can be limited due to lack of confidence in the criminal justice system, fearof revictimization, the attitude of the victims (including economic dependency, community norms, etc.), andinsufficient levels of victim support.
To ensure sufficient support for victims and witnesses, their unique needs during the pre-trial, trial andpost-trial stages must be addressed. Throughout all stages, the confidentiality of victims’ identities should bemaintained in order to prevent revictimization. During the pre-trial stage, measures to facilitate reporting ofcrime include providing interpreters, psychological and legal support, providing hotlines for reporting crimes
and utilization of specialized units for handling intolerance crimes. To facilitate police investigations, thegroup recommended establishing safehouses and interview rooms suitable to victims, judicial and police
protection, and the provision of financial support to victims. During the trial stage, the group recommended
a number of measures including the use of video-link and witness screening equipment, providing personal
and legal support, etc. During the post-trial stage, the group stressed the importance of ensuring adequate
victim compensation. Further, the group recommended providing psychological support, safehouses, andkeeping the victim appropriately informed of the status of the offender’s conviction and sentence.

143

APPENDIXCOMMEMORATIVE PHOTOGRAPH
171st International SENIOR SEMINAR

The 171st International Senior Seminar

Left to Right:
Above
Ms. Finch (OSCE), Ms. Ditsayabut (Thailand), Mr. Chrysikos (UNODC), Mr. Javed (Pakistan)
4th Row
Ms. Iwakata (Staff), Ms. Ide (JICA), Ms. Yamada (Staff), Ms. Odagiri (Chef), Ms. Nagahama (Staff), Mr. Saito(Staff), Mr. Lasmar (Brazil), Mr. Shuhad (Maldives), Mr. Win Myint Zaw (Myanmar), Mr. Jayasundara (SriLanka), Mr. Hirose (Staff), Mr. Hirose (Staff), Ms. Iinuma (Staff)
3rd Row
Ms. Oda (Staff), Mr. Onopia (Papua New Guinea), Mr. Nguyen (Viet Nam), Mr. Tamada (Japan), Mr. Numamae(Japan), Mr. Kadowaki (Japan), Mr. Ahmed (Pakistan), Mr. Himeda (Japan), Mr. Askarov (Uzbekistan), Mr.
Trono (Philippines), Mr. Astanov (Uzbekistan), Mr. Dissanayake (Sri Lanka), Ms. Ichihara (Japan), Ms. Fujita(Japan), Ms. Haidar (Maldives)
2nd Row
Mr. Okamoto (Japan), Ms. Mitsuhashi (Japan), Mr. Higuchi (Japan), Mr. Oda (Japan), Mr. Ishizaki (Japan), Ms.
Nishida (Japan), Mr. Nakajima (Japan), Mr. Fujita (Japan), Mr. Ueda (Japan)
1st Row
Ms. Kikuchi (Staff), Mr. Fujita (Staff), Prof. Ohinata, Prof. Yamamoto, Prof. Kitagawa, Prof. Mark Walters(United Kingdom), Director Seto, Prof. Futagoishi, Prof. Yamamoto, Prof. Otani, Prof. Furuhashi, Mr. Toyoda(Staff), Mr. Schmid (LA)147

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES INDEXVol.

Training Course Name

Course No.

Course Dates

1

Public Participation in Social Defence

25

Sep-Dec 1970

2

Administration of Criminal Justice26

Jan-Mar 1971

3

[Corrections]27

Apr-Jul 1971

[Police, Prosecution and Courts]

28

Sep-Dec 1971

Social Defence Planning

29

Feb-Mar 1972

Treatment of Crime and Delinquency

30

Apr-Jul 1972

United Nations Training Course in Human Rights in the
Administration of Criminal Justicen/a

Aug-Sep 1972

Administration of Criminal Justice31

Sep-Dec 1972

Reform in Criminal Justice32

Feb-Mar 1973

Treatment of Offenders

33

Apr-Jul 1973

7

[Administration of Criminal Justice]34

Sep-Dec 1973

8

Planning and Research for Crime Prevention

35

Feb-Mar 1974

Administration of Criminal Justice36

Apr-Jun 1974

International Evaluation Seminar37

Jul 1974

Treatment of Juvenile Delinquents and Youthful Offenders

38

Sep-Nov 1974

The Roles and Functions of the Police in a Changing Society

39

Feb-Mar 1975

Treatment of Offenders

40

Apr-Jul 1975

NB: Resource Material Series Index, Nos. 1-10 (p. 139)n/a

Oct 1975

11

Improvement in the Criminal Justice System

41

Sep-Dec 1975

12

Formation of a Sound Sentencing Structure and Policy

42

Feb-Mar 1976

Treatment of Offenders

43

Apr-Jul 1976

13

Exploration of Adequate Measures for Abating andPreventing Crimes of Violence

44

Sep-Dec 1976

14

Increase of Community Involvement

45

Feb-Mar 1977

Treatment of Juvenile Delinquents and Youthful Offenders

46

Apr-Jul 1977

Speedy and Fair Administration of Criminal Justice47

Sep-Dec 1977

Prevention and Control of Social and Economic Offences48

Feb-Mar 1978

Report of United Nations Human Rights Training Coursen/a

Dec 1977

Treatment of Offenders

49

Apr-Jul 1978

Dispositional Decisions in Criminal Justice Process50

Sep-Dec 1978

Treatment of Dangerous or Habitual Offenders

51

Feb-Mar 1979

Community-Based Corrections

52

Apr-Jul 1979

18

Roles of the Criminal Justice System in Crime Prevention

53

Sep-Dec 1979

19

Arrest and Pre-Trial Detention

54

Feb-Mar 1980

Institutional Treatment of Adult Offenders

55

Apr-Jul 1980

Institutional Treatment of Adult Offenders

55

Apr-Jul 1980

4

5

6

9
10

15

16
17

20

148

Integrated Approach to Effective and Efficient Administrationof Criminal Justice56

NB: Resource Material Series Index, Nos. 1-20 (p. 203)
21

Sep-Nov 1980
Mar 1981

Crime Prevention and Sound National Development

57

Feb-Mar 1981

Integrated Approach to Effective Juvenile Justice
Administration (including Proposed Guidelines for the
Formulation of the Standard Minimum Rules for Juvenile
Justice Administration: A draft prepared by UNAFEI on thebasis of the reports of the study groups at the 58th
International Training Course)

58

May-Jul 1981

Contemporary Problems in Securing an Effective, Efficient andFair Administration of Criminal Justice and Their Solutions

59

Feb-Mar 1982

Secruing Rational Exercise of Discretionary Powers at
Adjudication and Pre-adjudication Stages of Criminal Justice
Administration

60

Apr-Jul 1982

23

Improvement of Correctional Programmes for More Effective
Rehabilitation of Offenders

61

Sep-Nov 1982

24

Promotion of Innovations for Effective, Efficient and Fair
Administration of Criminal Justice62

Feb-Mar 1983

Community-Based Corrections

63

Apr-Jul 1983

The Quest for a Better System and Administration of Juvenile
Justice64

Sep-Dec 1983

Documents Produced during the International Meeting ofExperts on the Development of the United Nations Draft
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile
Justicen/a

Nov 1983

International Cooperation in Criminal Justice Administration

65

Feb-Mar 1984

Promotion of Innovation in the Effective Treatment of
Prisoners in Correctional Institutions

66

Apr-Jul 198427

An Integrated Approach to Drug Problems

67

Sep-Dec 1984

28

Contemporary Asian Problems in the Field of Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice, and Policy Implications

68

Feb-Mar 1985

Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee of Experts on UNAFEI Work Programmes andDirections

n/a

Mar 1985

Report of the International Workshop on the Role of Youth
Organizations in the Prevention of Crime Among Youthn/a

Jul 1985

Follow-up Team for Ex-Participants of UNAFEI Courses

n/a

Dec 1985

Community-Based Corrections

69

Apr-Jul 1985

29

In Pursuit of Greater Effectiveness and Efficiency in theJuvenile Justice System and Its Administration70

Sep-Dec 1985

30

Promotion of Innovation in Criminal Justice Administration for
the Prevention of New Criminality

71

Feb-Mar 1986

The Quest for Effective and Efficient Treatment of Offenders
in Correctional Institutions

72

Apr-Jul 1986

22

25

26

149

Economic Crime: Its Impact on Society and Effective
Prevention73

Sep-Nov 1986

Report of the International Seminar on Drug Problems in Asiaand the Pacific Regionn/a

Aug 1986

Advancement of Fair and Humane Treatment of Offenders
and Victims in Criminal Justice Administration74

Feb-Mar 1987

Non-institutional Treatment of Offenders: Its Role andImprovement for More Effective Programmes

75

Apr-Jun 1987

Evaluation of UNAFEI's International Courses on Preventionof Crime and Treatment of Offenders, and Drug Problems in
Asia

76

Aug-Sep 1987

Crime Related to Insurance77

Oct-Dec 1987

Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee of Experts on UNAFEI Work Programmes andDirectionsn/a

Sep 1987

Report of the Workshop on Implementation Modalities for the
Twenty-Three Recommendations Adopted by theInternational Seminar on Drug Problems in Asia and thePacific Regionn/a

Sep 1987

Footprints, Contemporary Achievements and Future
Perspectives in Policies for Correction and Rehabilitation of
Offenders78

Feb-Mar 1988

Search for the Solution of the Momentous and Urgent Issues
in Contemporary Corrections

79

Apr-Jul 1988

Resolution of the Asia and Pacific Regional Experts Meetingn/a

Mar 1988

Report of the Meeting of Experts on the United Nations Draft
Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (TheTokyo Rules)n/a

Jul 1988

35

Quest for Effective International Countermeasures to Pressing
Problems of Transnational Criminality

80

Sep-Nov 1988

36

Advancement of the Integration of Criminal Justice
Administration

81

Feb-Mar 1989

Innovative Measures for Effective and Efficient Administrationof Institutional Correctional Treatment of Offenders

82

Apr-Jul 1989

Report of the Expert Group Meeting on Adolescence andCrime Prevention in the ESCAP Regionn/a

Aug 1989

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in the Context ofDevelopment83

Sep-Nov 1989

International Workshop on Victimology and Victim's Rights

n/a

Oct 1989

Policy Perspectives on Contemporary Problems in Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice Administration

84

Jan-Mar 1990

Wider Use and More Effective Implementation of Noncustodial Measures for Offenders

85

Apr-Jun 1990

39

Search for Effective and Appropriate Measures to Deal with
the Drug Problem

86

Sep-Dec 1990

40

Development of an Effective International Crime and Justice
Programme

87

Jan-Mar 1991

31

32

33

34

37

38

150

Institutional Treatment of Offenders in Special Categories

88

Apr-Jul 1991

NB: Resource Material Series Index, Nos. 21-40 (p. 333)

n/a

n/a

41

Effective and Innovative Countermeasures against Economic
Crime

89

Sep-Dec 1991

42

Quest for Solutions of the Pressing Problems of Contemporary
Criminal Justice Administration

90

Jan-Feb 1992

Further Use and Effectual Development of Non-Custodial
Measures for Offenders

91

Apr-Jul 1992

43

Quest for Effective Methods of Organized Crime Control

92

Sep-Nov 1992

44

Policy Perspective for Organized Crime Suppression

93

Feb-Mar 1993

Current Problems in Institutional Treatment and Their
Solution

94

Apr-Jul 199345

Effective Countermeasures against Crimes Related to
Urbanization and Industrialization—Urban Crime, Juvenile
Delinquency and Enviromental Crime95

Sep-Dec 1993

46

Promotion of International Cooperation in Criminal Justice
Administration

96

Jan-Mar 1994

Effective Treatment of Drug Offenders and Juvenile
Delinquents

97

Apr-Jul 1994

47

Economic Crime and Effective Countermeasures against It

98

Sep-Dec 1994

48

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice: Public
Participation and the Prevention of Corruption

99

Jan-Mar 1995

The Institutional Treatment of Offenders: Relationships with
Other Criminal Justice Agencies and Current Problems in
Administration

100

Apr-Jul 1995

49

The Fair and Efficient Administration of Criminal Justice: The
Proper Exercise of Authority and Procedural Justice101

Sep-Dec 1995

50

Crime Prevention through Effective Firearms Regulation

102

Jan-Mar 1996

51

Improvement of the Treatment of Offenders through theStrengthening of Non-custodial Measures

103

Apr-Jul 1996

International Cooperation in Criminal Justice Administration

104

Sep-Nov 1996

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice for thePrevention of Corruption by Public Officials

105

Jan-Feb 1997

The Quest for Effective Juvenile Justice Administration

106

Apr-Jul 1997

The Role and Function of Prosecution in Criminal Justice107

Sep-Nov 1997

The Ninth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee ofExperts on UNAFEI Work Programmes and Directionsn/a

Oct 1997

Current Problems in the Combat of Organized Transnational
Crime

108

Jan-Feb 1998

Effective Treatment Measures for Prisoners to Faciliate Their
Reintegration into Society

109

Apr-Jul 1998

Effective Countermeasures against Economic and Computer
Crime

110

Aug-Nov 1998

The Role of Police, Prosecution and the Judiciary in the
Changing Society

111

Jan-Feb 1999

52

53

54

55

151

Participation of the Public and Victims for More Fair andEffective Criminal Justice112

Apr-Jul 1999

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice for thePrevention of Corrupt Activities by Public Officials

113

Aug-Nov 1999

International Cooperation to Combat Transnational Organized
Crime—with Special Emphasis on Mutual Legal Assistanceand Extradition

114

Jan-Feb 2000

Current Issues in Correctional Treatement and Effective
Countermeasures

115

May-Jun 2000

Effective Methods to Combat Transnational Organized Crime
in Criminal Justice Processes

116

Aug-Nov 2000

Current Situation and Countermeasures against Money
Laundering

117

Jan-Feb 2001

Best Practices in the Institutional and Community-Based
Treatment of Juvenile Offenders

118

May-Jul 2001

Current Situation of and Countermeasures against
Transnational Organized Crime

119

Sep-Nov 2001

60

Effective Administration of the Police and the Prosecution in
Criminal Justice120

Jan-Feb 2002

61

Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives toIncarceration at all Stages of the Criminal Justice Process

121

May-Jul 2002

62

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice to Tackle
Trafficking Human Beings and Smuggling of Migrants

122

Sep-Oct 2002

63

The Protection of Victims of Crime and the Active
Participation of Victims in the Criminal Justice Process
Specifically Considering Restorative Justice Approaches

123

Jan-Feb 2003

64

The Effective Prevention and Enhancement of Treatment for
Drug Abusers in the Criminal Justice Process

124

Apr-Jun 2003

65

Effective Countermeasures against Illicit Drug Trafficking andMoney Laundering125

Sep-Oct 2003

Sixth International Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice

6th UNCAC

66

Economic Crime in a Globalizing Society—Its Impact on theSound Development of the State

126

Jan-Feb 2004

67

Implementing Effective Measures for the Treatment of
Offenders after Fifty Years of United Nations Standard
Setting in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice127

May-Jun 2004

Measures to Combat Economic Crime, Including Money
Laundering

128

Aug-Oct 2004

68

Crime Prevention in the 21st Century—Effective Prevention of
Crime Associated with Urbanization Based upon Community
Involvement and Prevention of Youth Crime and Juvenile
Delinquency

129

Jan-Feb 2005

69

Integrated Strategies to Confront Domestic Violence and Child
Abuse

130

May-Jun 2005

7th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2005

56

57

58

59

Seventh Special Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice152

Nov 2003

70

The Use and Application of the United Nations Declaration of
Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse ofPower—Twenty Years after Its Adoption

131

Aug-Oct 2005

71

Strengthening the Legal Regime for Combating Terrorism

132

Jan-Feb 2006

8th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2005

Eighth International Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice72

Effective Prevention and Enhancement of Treatment for
Sexual Offenders

133

May-Jun 2006

73

Challenges in the Investigation, Prosecution and Trial ofTransnational Organized Crime

134

Aug-Oct 2006

9th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2006

Ninth International Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice74

Promoting Public Safety and Controlling Recidivism Using
Effective Interventions with Offenders: An Examination ofBest Practices

135

Jan-Feb 200775

Effective Measures for the Treatment of Juvenile Offenders
and their Reintegration into Society

136

May-Jun 200776

Corporate Crime and the Criminal Liability of Corportate
Entities

137

Sep-Oct 2007

10th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2007

Tenth International Training Course on the Criminal Justice
Response to Corruption
77

Effective Legal and Practical Measures for Combating
Corruption: A Criminal Justice Response

138

Jan-Feb 2008

78

Profiles and Effective Treatment of Serious and Violent
Juvenile Offenders

139

May-Jun 2008

79

The Criminal Justice Response to Cybercrime140

Sep-Oct 2008

11th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2008

The Improvement of the Treatment of Offenders through the
Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives toIncarceration

141

Jan-Feb 2009

Effective Countermeasures against Overcrowding ofCorrectional Facilities

142

May-Jun 2009

Twelfth International Training Course on the Criminal Justice
Response to Corruption

12th UNCAC

Jul-Aug 2009

Ethics and Codes of Conduct for Judges, Prosecutors and Law
Enforcement Officials

143

Sep-Nov 200981

The Enhancement of Appropriate Measures for Victims of
Crime at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice Process

144

Jan-Feb 201082

Effective Resettlement of Offenders by Strengthening"Community Reintegration Factors"

145

May-Jun 2010

83

Attacking the Proceeds of Crime: Identification, Confiscation,
Recovery and Anti-Money Laundering Measures

146

Aug-Oct 2010

13th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2010

147

Jan-Feb 2011

Eleventh International Training Course on the Criminal
Justice Response to Corruption

80

The 13th International Training Course on the Criminal
Justice Response to Corruption
84

Community Involvement in Offender Treatment

153

85

Drug Offender Treatment: New Approaches to an Old
Problem

148

May-Jun 2011

86

Securing Protection and Cooperation of Witnesses andWhistle-blowers

149

Aug-Sep 2011

Effective Legal and Practical Measures against Corruption

14th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 201187

Trafficking in Persons—Prevention, Prosecution, Victim
Protection and Promotion of International Cooperation

150

Jan-Feb 201288

Evidence-Based Treatment of Offenders

151

May-Jun 201289

Trafficking in Persons—Prevention, Prosecution, Victim
Protection and Promotion of International Cooperation

152

Aug-Sep 2012

Effective Legal and Practical Measures against Corruption

15th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2012

90

Treatment of Female Offenders

153

Jan-Feb 2013

91

Stress Management of Correctional Personnel—Enhancing the
Capacity of Mid-Level Staff

154

May-Jun 201392

Effective Collection and Utilization of Evidence in Criminal
Cases

155

Aug-Oct 2013

Effective Measures to Prevent and Combat Corruption and to
Encourage Cooperation between the Public and Private
Sectors

16th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2013

93

Protection for Victims of Crime and Use of Restorative Justice
Programmes

156

Jan-Feb 201494

Assessment and Treatment of Special Needs Offenders

157

May-Jun 201495

Measures for Speedy and Efficient Criminal Trials

158

Aug-Sep 2014

17th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2014

Effective Measures to Prevent and Combat Corruption
Focusing on Identifying, Tracing, Freezing, Seizing,
Confiscating and Recovering Proceeds of Corrpution
96

Public Participation in Community Corrections

159

Jan-Feb 201597

The State of Cybercrime: Current Issues andCountermeasures

160

May-Jun 201598

Staff Training for Correctional Leadership

161

Aug-Sep 2015

Effective Anti-Corruption Enforcement and Public-Private andInternational Cooperation

18th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2015

99

Multi-Agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of
Offenders

162

Jan-Feb 2016

100

Children as Victims and Witnesses

163

May-Jun 2016101

Effective Measures for Treatment, Rehabilitation and Social
Reintegration of Juvenile Offenders

164

Aug-Sep 2016

Effective Anti-Corruption Enforcement (Investiagation andProsecution) in the Area of Procurement

19th UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2016

102

Juvenile Justice and the United Nations Standards and Norms

165

Jan-Feb 2017

103

Criminal Justice Procedures and Practices to Disrupt Criminal
Organizations

166

May-Jun 2017

104

Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration of Organized Crime
Members and Terrorists

167

Aug-Sep 2017154

Effective Measures to Investigate the Proceeds of Corruption
Crimes20th UNCAC

Nov-Dec 2017

105

Enhancing the Rule of Law in the Field of Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice: Policies and Practices Based on the
United Nations Conventions and Standards and Norms

168

Jan-Feb 2018

106

Criminal Justice Practices against Illicit Drug Trafficking

169

May-Jun 2018

107

Treatment of Illicit Drug Users

170

Aug-Sep 2018

Effective Criminal Justice Practices through International
Cooperation and Engagement of Civil Society for Combating
Corruption

21st UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2018

Criminal Justice Response to Crimes Motivated by Intolerance
and Discrimination

171

Jan-Feb 2019

108

155

ISSN 0256-5471
ISBN 978-4-87033-328-4

Printed in Japan by TAIHEI PRINTING Co., LTD.