As a member of any society, we expect to be free from discrimination, but minority groups often experience micro-aggressions, discrimination, and hate crimes.
In such situations, we expect that the authorities will seek justice on our behalf. However, discrimination is not only a societal problem, but also systemic within the structures of society. Often this impacts the likelihood of prosecuting perpetrators or cause delays in the initial investigation.
Today, Faces of Implementation turns to the group of cases *Šečić* *v. Croatia*, which concerns hate crimes and the ineffective police investigation into hate crimes.
We speak to Tea Dabić from Human Rights House Zagreb about her experiences advocating for the implementation of this case and engaging in the implementation process and educating police officers.

About the series

The Interview

Introduction

My name is Tea Dabic, and I’m a Human Rights and Judiciary Program Coordinator at Human Rights House (HRH) Zagreb, where I focus on hate crimes, freedom of expression, assembly and freedom of association. We are a human rights network of civil society organisations established in 2008. Our goal at Human Rights House is to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Croatia by building a democratic and inclusive society based on human rights values and the rule of law through research, advocacy, and educational and monitoring activities.

HRH Zagreb’s most recognisable output is our annual human rights report, which provides an overview of systematic human rights problems and challenges in Croatia. We gather information from more than 40 civil society organisations and academic stakeholders. This resource is the only independent nonstate source of human rights in Croatia. In 2019, we became a member of EIN and started working on the implementation process of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments. We are grateful for the support from EIN in the execution process.

Since our membership, we have continuously monitored the execution process for several cases within our field of work, which included our submissions in the Šečić case, in partnership with other civil society organisations.

Annual Report “Human rights in Croatia: Overview of 2021”

Background

The Šečić case concerns the lack of effective investigation into racist attacks. In 1999, the applicant, Mr Šemso Šečić, who was of Roma ethnicity, was attacked with a wooden stick by a group of individuals shouting racial abuse. Mr Šečić sustained severe injuries. Once in hospital, doctors did not find any broken bones and sent the applicant home with painkillers. After leaving the hospital, Mr Šečić experienced severe pain and returned to the doctor. After a second visit, they found he had sustained multiple rib fractures. As a result of the attack, he also sustained PTSD and suffered panic attacks and depression.

The police knew that a hate crime was committed, that the attack was committed by members of a skinhead group - known to be involved in these incidents. However, the police didn’t question members of the skinhead group. Nor did they investigate any other leads. At the time, our national public broadcaster, sent a journalist to interview one of the skinheads, and he was actually explaining why they were attacking the Roma population. As a matter of fact, he described the attack committed against Mr Šečić, and the police failed to pursue any legal measures that would require the journalist to identify the interviewed skinhead. The police allowed the investigation to last more than seven years.

The ECtHR heard the case in 2007, where they found the State in violation of Article 3, which is prohibits torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in conjunction with Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits discrimination.

Positive Developments

Until supervision ended earlier this year, the case was under supervision for almost 15 years, and the measures taken by the Croatian authorities to address hate crime have been wide-ranging. Our organisation has been monitoring the implementation of this group of judgments since 2019.

June 2019 Round Table on “Human rights protections in Croatia: Hate crimes and presumption of innocence”.

During this time, HRH Zagreb was involved in the implementation process both at the national level and at the Council of Europe level. We submitted five Rule 9 communications to the Committee of Ministers: two in the Šečić case, one in the Skendžić and two in the Stojanović case. In the Šečić case, HRH Zagreb argued that despite the progress achieved, Croatia still faces problems with applying the legislation according to Convention requirements, from inconsistencies in classifying and investigating hate crimes to identifying bias motivation by the relevant authorities. We also showed that punishment for hate crime cases was inadequate and that underreporting remained a serious problem.

At the same time, at the national level, in order to contribute to the full implementation of this group of cases, we have been conducting advocacy, research and educational activities on an ongoing basis, aimed at legal practitioners, police officers, and representatives of CSOs. The purpose of this work is to enhance their capacity to effectively deal with hate crimes and to improve their skills, knowledge and attitudes in providing support to hate crime victims, ensuring they understand hate crimes and the impact that hate crimes have on society as a whole.

The educational activities we conduct for police officers are our most prominent activity. We have really good cooperation with the Police Academy. Every year since 2016, we organise 1-3 training activities for police officers about hate crimes. During the first training, we organized with the police six years ago, I discovered how much they need to have this sensibility training, addressing, for example, how to overcome prejudice. This of type training needs to be provided to them in order to see the changes in their perspective and awareness. We always have pre-training and post-training evaluations, and we always ask “have you ever attended this type of training before?”; “At work, have you ever met with hate crime victims?”. From these evaluations, it results that very few of them have been in contact with hate crime victims, because we have a low number of cases due to underreporting. They know what hate crime is, they know the protocol, and the indicators to keep in mind when investigating cases. On the theoretical level, all is well and good. Now, we need to shift their perspectives.

This is a good example of what we do and how we cooperate with the government on the implementation of the Šečić judgment. We have seen some changes within the police and would like to continue police sensitivity training work in the future.

In addition, the majority of the activities presented in the government’s Action Report were carried out in cooperation with CSOs. Open collaboration with the authorities is critical in this process.

In 2021, we participated in the public consultations on adopting new rules of procedures in processing hate crimes: a hate crimes protocol. We participated in the initial consultation. After the initial consultation, we initiated a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister of Social Affairs and Human Rights in Croatia, in order to address the adoption of a hate crime protocol. In the meeting, we participated as part of a coalition of civil society organizations, advocating together for the needed changes.

A positive result was the entry into force of the first hate crimes protocol in 2021, intending to contribute to more successful detection and processing of hate crimes. The Protocol broadened hate crime indicators which the police should examine when carrying out the investigation. A victim-centered approach is envisaged when carrying out police investigations.

Moreover, it introduced obligations for the police, State Attorneys, and the judiciary, setting out how they need to act and respond to hate crimes, collect data, qualify instances as hate crimes, establish cooperation with other relevant stakeholders, and how mark files to differentiate them from various types of criminal offences. For example, as a result of this protocol, the Ministry of Interior needs to collect data in the first six months of the year, and they send it to the Prosecutor’s Office, who then supplements it with their data. From there, it gets transferred to the judiciary, which supplements it, and finally, it goes to the Government Office of Human Rights, which consolidates and disseminates the data.

In the 2021 meeting, we also advocated that more civil society representatives should be involved in the official working group that monitors and collects data on hate crimes. The fact that our proposal was accepted was a major positive development. Now, the working group consists of five representatives from civil society organizations, and their deputies. There are ten representatives from civil society organizations. This is great because from 2011 to 2021, there was only one representative in the official working group. We can be proud of our advocacy activities.

Challenges

Our laws are good. However, there is room for improvement when applying legislation in line with the ECHR. The problem is that hate crime is still not consistently classified; hate crimes should be prosecuted as criminal offences, not misdemeanors.

Another challenge is that authorities are not properly identifying biased motivation. If a potential hate crime results in severe bodily injury, the prosecution will pursue it as a hate crime. If an injury does not meet that threshold - it will be treated as a misdemeanour. In our opinion, that is still a problem. Weakness in identifying bias motivation, misclassification in bias – these problems continue to be applicable for hate crimes against members of the LGBT minority.

Another problem is the under-reporting of hate crimes. Sometimes victims do not recognize themselves as a victim. Often, they do not report a crime because several reasons: fear of further victimisation, lack of confidence in authorities or the belief that they will not get the support and protection they need.

One other ongoing challenge is inadequate punishment of perpetrators; this is a general problem in Croatia, not only for hate crimes. In practice, the most common punishment in Croatia is a conditional sentence. In some cases, aggravating circumstances are not considered in sentences. They should be because that is foreseen in the legal provision on hate crimes.

Furthermore, statistics on hate crimes need to be more detailed to have a basis for suitable analysis. They do not distinguish hate crimes on different grounds of bias or reveal whether a hate crime committed is against a national minority. However, this should be changed with the new 2021 hate crime protocol.

Finally, even though civil society organisations usually carry out hate crime education for police, judges, and prosecutors, training should be intensified, institutionalised, made to be more systematic and continuous. Right now, the training activities depend only on our project activities. Every year, we apply for projects that deal with hate crimes. So, every year we carry out educational activities thanks to the EU projects or support we got from the Belgian and UK embassies in Zagreb. However, that is the problem: they are not systematic. This capacity building should not depend on civil society activities; this is something I can’t stress enough. The police and judicial academies need to incorporate these topics into their regular curriculum.

HRH Zagreb Advice to Civil Society Organisations

I would stress to civil society organisations that ECtHR implementation is arguably the most crucial tool for human rights advocacy. Even when I reflect on other international human rights instruments, I think the ECHR has the most influence. Not only do judgments provide justice for the victims, but they are also an incentive for positive changes in law, policy, and ultimately in society. Civil society organisations are human rights watchdogs in democratic societies - we have a crucial role in upholding ECHR values. Without input from civil society organisations, the process can only depend on what the government reports. And of course, we as NGOs can have substantive information regarding specific topics and challenges because we work in the field. We are advocating for citizens, victims, and the problems they are facing when reporting hate crimes. We hold a lot of information that we can submit to the Committee of Ministers: data, information, and statistics; these are all true expressions of the human rights situation in Croatia. It is important to share this data in order to see progress and change.

Training for police officers on hate crime in 2019

Prior to our interview with Tea, the Committee of Ministers officially closed the Šečić case on 6th April 2022.

While the supervision of the Šečić case was closed, the Committee of Ministers decided that any outstanding measures aimed at ensuring effective investigation into hate crimes targeting LGBTI persons continue to be examined within the context of the Sabalić case. While the positive developments in general measures also have an impact on hate crimes targeting LGBTI persons, additional challenges occur in respect of the LGBTI community.

For example, specialised CSOs providing legal and psychological support for the LGBTI victims of hate crimes have flagged that the victims feel there is insufficient communication with the police and prosecutors after reporting a crime to the police. Furthermore, since 2021, we have also been witnessing an increasing number of cases of hate crimes against the LGBTI community. Last year, there were yet again incidents and hate crime cases that were committed after the Pride parade.

It is much easier for us to advocate for policy changes when the case is pending implementation. However, now that the Šečić case is closed, I think we already did a lot of good things on the policy level. But we will continue working on that training activities in regard to the Šečić, Skorjanec and Sabalić cases. Now more than ever, we need to take steps to change attitudes.