Indicator history

Close Window

Is the judiciary reported to be adequately and effectively combating racist violence/hate crime?

Code:
RED28
Key Area:
Anti-racist Crime Legislation & Implementation
Strand(s):
Racism
18/01/2012 - 23:36
Short Answer

Courts do not keep any systemic records on basic criminal offences motivated by ethnic/racial or religious intolerance which does not enable assessment. Jurisprudence of Slovenian courts regarding Articles of the Criminal Code, specifically targeting hate crimes is very scarce.

Qualitative Info

Courts do not keep any systemic records on basic criminal offences motivated by ethnic/racial or religious intolerance which does not enable assessment. However, jurisprudence of Slovenian courts regarding Articles of the Criminal Code, specifically targeting hate crimes (Article 131 -violation of right to equality, Article 297- public incitement to hatred, violence or intolerance) is very scarce.
Publicly available data of the Statistični urad Republike Slovenije (SURS) [Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia] show that there were no convictions regarding the criminal offence of violation of right to equality in years 2010, 2009 and 2008. In 2007 one person was convicted, the court in this case did not pass a sentence, it only issued a safety measure (a specific type of criminal sanction).  The data also shows one conviction regarding the criminal offence of public incitement to hatred, violence or intolerance in 2010. The available data shows that in this case the sentence from 3 to 6 months of imprisonment was passed (statistical category of the Statistical Office).

In its 2010 report Varuh človekovih pravic [Human Rights Ombudsman] highlights the issue with Vrhovno državno tožilstvo [Office of the State Prosecutor General of the Republic of Slovenia]. Namely, the position of the Office regarding the issue of public incitement to hatred, violence or intolerance is that these criminal offences should predominantly be addressed through prevention: education and awareness-raising.  The Ombudsman agrees on the importance of such activities but states that the operation of institutions such as Office of the State Prosecutor General, which have its functions and powers clearly established in the law, cannot be based on prevention. Since the State Prosecutor’s Offices are the ones that bring criminal cases before courts, such position of the Office of the State Prosecutor General also prevents the development of case-law in this field, which is vital for establishing the line between punishable expressions of hatred and expressions, protected within the freedom of expression.


Source: http://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/LP10.pdf; http://www.stat.si/

Groups affected/interested Migrants, Refugees, Roma & Travelers, Muslims, Ethnic minorities, Religious minorities, Linguistic minorities, Asylum seekers, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender, Persons with disability, Africans/black people, National minorities
Type (R/D) Extremism - organised Racist Violence, Anti-migrant/xenophobia, Anti-semitism, Islamophobia, Afrophobia, Arabophobia, Anti-roma/zinghanophobia, Religious intolerance, Inter-ethnic, Intra-ethnic, Nationalism, Homophobia, On grounds of disability, On grounds of other belief, Anti-roma/ romaphobia, Xenophobia
Key socio-economic / Institutional Areas Policing - law enforcement
External Url
Situation(s)
Library