DOCUMENTING HATE CRIMES AGAINST LGBT PERSONS IN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA

Abstracted by the Legal Team of Iskorak and Kontra (henceforward: “The Legal Team”)


1. INTRODUCTION
Hate crime is even more harmful to victims than other types of crime. Hate crime constitutes an assault on the victim’s essential sense of personal worth. A person who has been singled out for victimisation based on some group characteristic, such as his or hers sexual preference, race, gender or ethnicity, has, by the very act, been deprived of the right to participate in the life of the community on an equal footing for reasons that have nothing to do with what the victim has done, but everything to do with what the victim is. Namely, a bias-based attack is as much an attack on the victim’s persona as on the victim’s person. Recognition of this fact inevitably produces a sense of vulnerability, isolation and oppression that rarely disappears with the healing of physical injuries.
Hate crime has wider impact than ordinary crime. Hate crime affects not only the victim, but all the members of the victim’s group as well, along with all the other groups vulnerable to this type of crime. Hate crime attacks the community cohesion and the social order in general, leading to distrust, fear, and anxiety. Hate crime legislation sends a clear message that homo/bi/transphobia, racism and bigotry will not be tolerated inside the community. They help to create climate of tolerance and respect for differences which, when combined with education, diminish the likelihood of violent hate crime being committed – or accepted.
In Croatia, there is no statistic data on the motives of hate crime. Upon demanding from the State authorities to produce statistics on crime motivated by victim’s religion, race, ethnic origin, skin color, assets or sexual orientation, we were answered that these values were protected in the context of crime of violation of equality of citizens (Article 106 of the Penal Code) and crime of racial and other discrimination (Article 174 Section 1 of the Penal Code). On the basis of the data given by the State authorities to the OSCE (OSCE 2005, Combatting Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region: An Overview of Statistics, Legislation, and National Initiatives), Croatia was categorized in a group of countries that did have regulations on hate crimes (Article 174 of the Penal Code – Racial and other Discrimination).
On the other hand, inquiries of the Legal Team of Iskorak and Kontra as to the statistics on crime in which the perpetrator is motivated by a characteristic of the victim that identifies the victim as a member of a certain social group, we received an answer only in regards to crimes of discrimination in a sense of an unequal treatment and hate speech (regulated in Article 174 Section 3 of Penal Code). We didn’t receive any data on crime motivated by the perpetrator's hatred of a certain social group, leading us to conclude that such crimes are not treated with notable difference as compared to non-bias crimes, and that special statistics are not being gathered in regards to hate crimes.
Collecting data is particularly problematic when it concerns hate crime against sexual minorities, because victims of such crimes mostly do not report acts of violence and discrimination against them due to fear of revealing their sexual orientation or gender identity, and their distrust of legal protection afforded to them in Croatia. The Penal Code itself affords protection of sexual minorities against some crimes, but not all hate crimes. The crime of violation of citizens' equality, or the crime of racial and other discrimination, only covered crimes of discrimination (unequal treatment, hate speech), but did not cover other crimes motivated by victim’s affiliation (such as homicide committed against a transgender person, motivated by victim’s gender expression).
Therefore, the Legal Team, supported by the Women’s Network of Croatia and the Center for Peace Studies, has drafted and presented to public three draft amendments to the Penal Code which included definition of hate crime.
There is also another serious problem, which refers to the Croatian Penal Code and its Section 174 Section 3, designed to address hate speech. The interpretation of Section 3 indicated that direct intent was to be proven in each instance; therefore it was impossible to implement this provision in practice. All hate speech cases that have so far been presented to the Legal Team were dismissed by the Public Attorney’s Office because direct intent of offender was impossible to prove. The reasoning was that the suspect stated his/her opinion about the topic in question without any intent to propagate hatred on the basis of someone’s sexual orientation. Therefore, we suggested that words “with the aim of propagating racial, religious, gender, national or ethnic hatred. or hatred on the basis of skin color, or with the aim of degrading another person” be deleted from Section 174 Section 3 of the Penal Code, so as to be exempt from the requirement to prove direct intent in respect to the hate speech offenders. We shall include changes to Section 174 Section 3 of the Penal Code in our amendments to the Penal Code.

1.2. PURPOSE AND GOALS OF THE PROJECT
The project's purpose is to document the cases of hate speech and hate crime towards the LGBTIQ persons. This shall provide a better insight into the current status of the LGBTIQ's, and show the extent and the regional distribution of their discrimination, as well as increase the efficiency of the Legal Team in its offering of necessary ways of support and fight against discrimination.
The purpose of this project is to document more systematically the cases of hate crimes (Legal Team has been providing direct legal help to the victims of hate crime since 2002) and hate speech against sexual and gender minorities.


1. 3. A SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION
During its existence, the Legal Team has, in various ways, noted the cases and data on the persons who requested its services. However, this data was in possession of the involved activists themselves, and was incompatible for comparison. A significant difficulty was created by the fact that not all data was digitally filed, hindering its storage. Case data was being disseminated during the regular weekly meetings.
The Legal Team has also secured the services of a press-cutting firm, which created a database of articles that dealt with or mentioned the LGBTIQ issues. During the weekly meetings, ways of responding to hate speech in media were discussed. However, there was no analysis of hate crime in the media, nor was there any logging of the ways some of these cases were responded to.
With the support of ILGA Europe, a project was created to consistently document data of the Legal Team's cases in order to provide information on hate crime and hate speech in the media, thereby pinpointing the areas of further intervention and increasing the efficiency of such intervention. Aside from hate speech and hate crime, the intent is to log the ways in which the Legal Team has responded to those occurences.
Initially, the focus was on developing a method of logging the cases and a pattern of noting hate speech in the media. After that, the activists started noting the cases and corresponding responses in the designed forms.
The project's activities included the retroactive noting of cases in the designed forms, to convert the data into a digital form, to be systematised and analysed.
The cases of requesting help and support, submitted to the Legal Team over the Internet, by phone, or in person during 2005, 2006 and 2007, have been included in the forms and are a part of the analysis within the documentation project.
As far as hate speech in the media is concerned, the analysis covers only 2006, but the database includes and notes earlier responses as well.


2. THE MEANS OF GATHERING AND DOCUMENTING DATA
Data has been gathered on two levels: one covered the cases which contacted the Legal Team over the Internet, by phone, or in person, and the other covered the printed media and the analysis of hate speech therein. Having gathered and analysed data, the Legal Teams responded in both cases, if it was determined that there was sufficient cause.


2.1. THE MEANS OF GATHERING AND DOCUMENTING CASE DATA
An instrument was developed to log the cases which contacted the Legal Team over the Internet, by phone, or in person. The first part of the instrument logs the date and time of the contact, and the activist who replied.
Next, personal data on the applicant is logged: age, sex, sexual preference, education, place of residence, employment status, family status, and the frequency of contact. Due to fear of being stigmatised and other reasons, persons in need of assistance and support often do not contact the Legal Team themselves, but have it done by proxy.
In such cases, data on the applicant is logged separately from the data on the user, or the person to whom the response applies.
The instrument also logs detailed data on the case itself. Type and direction of contact is noted by checking whether the contact has been: 1) concerned with the LGBTIQ issues, especially asking about the rights or rights violation (hate crime reporting); 2) concerned with legal status of other groups; 3) made for other reasons, i.e. contacting the activist himself or herself for any sort of abuse. Then the case is described, and information is noted on any previous responses to the case and the services contacted. The final part of the instrument notes the responses made by the Legal Team and their results.



2.1.1. THE LOGGING INSTRUMENT: THE LIST OF PERSONAL HELP AND SUPPORT USERS

1. Date:
2. Time and place of contact:
(Also note the means of contacting and where the contact info has been obtained)
3. Name of activist:
4. Applicant info:
(Insert data on the person who contacted the Legal Team for service)
4.1. Sex: M F D
(D stands for transgender persons, persons of unstated sex etc.)
4.2. Age:
4.3. Applicant identity:
(Should the applicant not provide a name or codename, they will be assigned a codename by the activist.)
a) Anonymous
b) Declared name, surname or nickname:
c) Activist-assigned codename:
4.4. Declared sexual orientation: L G B H Other:
("Other" pertains to asexual persons and all other sexual orientations that aren't otherwise noted.)
4.5. Applicant's place of residence:
a) Lodging:
b) Permanent home:
4.6. Frequency of contact:
a) First contact
b) Previous contacts:
c) Constant applicant:
4.7. Education:
a) Unfinished elementary school
b) Elementary school
c) Middle school
d) University student
e) University
f) Other:
4.8. Employment status:
a) Unemployed
b) Employed
c) Part-time employed:
d) Illegaly employed:
e) Other:
4.9. Applicant's marital status:
a) Not married
b) Married
c) Common-law married
d) Same-sex relationship
e) Other
4.10. Applicant's parental status:
(Note the number of children and specific info, i.e. if the child has been adopted etc.)
a) None
b) Plans to
c) Has:
5. Case data
5.1. Case type:
a) Concerning the applicant himself or herself
b) Concerning a third party:
c) Concerning the applicant and the third party:
d) Other
If the contact relates to a third party or parties, data in #6 has to be provided for those persons as well.)
5.2. Case type (check one):
a) LGBTIQ questions – rights enquiries
b) LGBTIQ questions – rights violations (hate crime or hate speech)
c) Enquiries about the legal status of other groups
d) Abuse
e) Other:
5.3. Case description:
5.4. Previously requested help from other services:
a) None
b) Requested, from:
c) Is under continuous care of other services:
d) Other:
Description of previous activities to solve the problem, and the ways in which the previously-contacted services offered help and support:
6. Applicant's personal data
(To be filled if the applicant, or caller, makes the contact on behalf of another person, or the user. In such cases, fill the data from 6.1. to 6.9. for the user.)
6.1. Sex: M F D
(D stands for transgender persons, persons of unstated sex etc.)
6.2. Age:
6.3. User identity:
(Should the applicant not provide a name or codename, they will be assigned a codename by the activist.)
a) Anonymous
b) Declared name, surname or nickname:
c) Activist-assigned codename:
6.4. Declared sexual orientation: L G B H Other:
("Other" pertains to asexual persons and all other sexual orientations that aren't otherwise noted.)
6.5. Applicant's place of residence:
a) Lodging:
b) Permanent home:
6.6. Education:
a) Unfinished elementary school
b) Elementary school
c) Middle school
d) University student
e) University
f) Other:
6.7. Employment status:
a) Unemployed
b) Employed
c) Part-time employed:
d) Illegaly employed:
e) Other:
6.8. Applicant's marital status:
a) Not married
b) Married
c) Common-law married
d) Same-sex relationship
e) Other
6.9. Applicant's parental status:
(Note the number of children and specific info, i.e. if the child has been adopted etc.)
a) None
b) Plans to
c) Has:
Interventions
7. The activist's intervention:
a) Organising a counselling meeting
b) Help with document creation:
c) Counselling while seeking institutional aid:
d) Legal help of the attorney:
e) Counselling aid or psycho-social aid by the following expert:
f) Other:
8. Is the user the injured party, or victim, of a criminal offence: YES NO
If yes, which:
9. Is the perpetrator being prosecuted:
YES – prior to the Team's involvement
YES – through the Team's response
NO – the user wished not to press charges
10. Type of prosecution:
a) Felony
b) Crime
c) Civil
11. Outcome of the process (fill in for the pertaining type of process):
11.1. The outcome of the felony process:
a) DISCARDED by the police:
b) DISCARDED by the state attorney's office:
c) DISCARDED by the court:
d) The perpetrator was FOUND NOT GUILTY:
e) The perpetrator was FOUND GUILTY:
11.2. The outcome of the criminal process:
a) DISCARDED by the police:
b) DISCARDED by the state attorney's office:
c) DISCARDED by the court:
d) The perpetrator was FOUND NOT GUILTY:
e) The perpetrator was FOUND GUILTY and sentenced to:
11.1. The outcome of the civil process:
a) DISCARDED by the court:
b) The perpetrator was FOUND NOT GUILTY:
c) The perpetrator was FOUND GUILTY:
12. Duration of the process:
13. Notes (i.e., attitude of the justice system towards the victim, etc.):



2.2. THE MEANS OF GATHERING AND DOCUMENTING DATA ON MEDIA RESEARCH AND PUBLIC ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE LGBTIQ ISSUES
A press-cutting firm has been hired to gather articles in any way connected to the LGBTIQ persons, i.e. those that mention the LGBTIQ persons. This documentation project systematises data about hate speech directed towards the LGBTIQ persons in 2007, and documents the Legal Team's responses against hate speech in media, both for 2007 and for the three previous years (2004, 2005 and 2006).
The analysis was made using a form containing the following data:
 Name of media
 Article's attitude
 Picture/text compatibility
 Type of hate speech:
- The journalist is reporting a public person's hate speech
- The journalist is using hate speech him- or herself
 Legal characteristics of the hate speech
 Responses



3. OVERVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTED DATA

3.1. OVERVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTED DATA ON THE LEGAL TEAM'S CASES – DISCRIMINATION AND HATE CRIME
The Legal Team of Iskorak and Kontra had a total of 79 applicants in 2006, and a total of 27 applicants in the first five months of 2007. Comparing this number with the number of contacts in 2005, with a total of 71 applicants, it is clear that there was an overall increase in contacts to the Legal Team in 2006, and a decrease in 2007.
Analysing the means of contact, it is apparent that 2006 and 2007 see a significant increase in the number of contact via e-mail.
The majority of applicants still contact via telephone, about 78% of them.
In the case of telephone contact, it needs to be said that the project has used different phone lines to contact the Legal Team during its existence. Applicants also used office phone lines of Kontra and Iskorak, used for other purposes. Such instances made it necessary to ensure the quality of the information applicants receive over different phone lines. These circumstances hindered the logging of received contacts. Thus it became necessary to develop a methodology to log calls and document the cases of the LGBTIQ persons' rights violations. Through the ILGE financial assistance, these difficulties were solved within the project by creating a form to log all phone calls, as well as voice mail and e-mail contacts. During its time, the project also developed a digital case database, dealing with cases from 2006 and 2007, as well as previous years, starting from 2004.
This digital case database contains personal data on the victims. Therefore, it is only accessible to the Legal Team's activists. It proves to be a significant asset to Iskorak and Kontra, as it enables the analysis of cases, the information thus received influences the policy-making within the organisations and the further process of legal initiative.
The Legal Team has received a new phone line in late 2006, and the total number of contacts in 2007 decreased in comparison to the previous year.

Ways in which contacts were made
Using the phone Using e-mail
Total
2005 68
96%
3
4%
71

2006 52
66% 27
34% 79

January-May 2007 18 67% 9 33% 27

Total 138 78% 39 12% 177

Types of services requested
LGBTIQ-related contacts
Queries on legal status of other groups Other
Abuse Other
(i.e., media contacts)
Queries on legal rights Rights violation cases
2005 16 23 % 6 8 % 2 2 % 21 30% 26 37 %
2006 19 25% 16 20% 8 10% 12 15% 24 30%
January-May 2007
7
26%
6
22%
3
11%
5
19%
6
22%

A more detailed analysis of the received queries reveals that betweent 30% and 50% were LGBTIQ-related, and that there is a yearly increase in the percentage of queries related to the LGBTIQ issues. Most of the LGBTIQ-queries were about their legal rights, whereas those related to rights abuse reporting were somewhat fewer (this includes hate crime and hate speech as covered in Section 174 Section 1 of the Penal Code of the Republic of Croatia – Racial and Other Discrimination).
Other contacts were related to queries on the legal status, or rights abuses of other groups, as well as abuse and other topics, i.e. contacting the organisation's activists, mostly by journalists, or various forms of abuse.
LGBTIQ-related queries are logged in detail using the form created for this express purpose, enabling the case to be monitored. Some users make contact with a single query to the Legal Team related to the LGBTIQ issues, while others contact over a period of time, enabling the case to be continually monitored and different services to be rendered. Queries related to other groups, and other types of queries, are logged in a shortened form.


Services requested via e-mail and the Internet
Year


Total number of cases
LGBTIQ-related cases
Queries on legal status of other groups Other
Abuse Other
Rights queries Rights violation cases
2005 3 2 1 - - -
2006 27 13 10 4 - -
January-May 2007 9 4 2 1 - 2

The gay.hr website, administered by the Iskorak organisation, hosts an online help center that enables queries to be made to the Legal Team. Between early 2005 to late May 2007 there were a total of 39 queries made to the Legal Team via the Internet or e-mail. Of the total number of queries made in 2006 and the first five months of 2007, 2 were misplaced calls (logged as Other), and 5 involved queries unrelated to the LGBTIQ issues. 32 queries, or 82% of all queries, related to the LGBTIQ issues. Of them, 19 were related to advising and legal counselling of the LGBTIQ persons, and 13 were related to the cases of rights violations.

Services requested via phone
LGBTIQ-related calls
Queries on legal status of other groups Other

Abuse
Other
Rights queries etc. Rights violation cases
2005 68 14 5 2 21 26
2006 52 6 7 7 12 20
January-May 2007
18
3
4
2
5
4

Between early 2005 and late May 2007, there were a total of 138 phone queries. Of the total number of calls, 64% were related to abuse or misplaced calls, and 8% were related to the advice unrelated to the LGBTIQ issues. 28% of the calls were related to the LGBTIQ issues, with 17% of them related to rights advice, and 11% of them to the cases of rights violations.

Types of rights violations


Type of violation 2005. 2006. 2007-

committed
reported
committed
reported
committed
reported
Racial and other discrimination
6
1
16
2
6
0

Insult
6
0
16
1
6
0
Violent behaviour
3
3
4

Family Violence
2
5
0

Threat
1
0
1

Libel
0
1
0
Unlawful imprisonment
0
1
0
Personal status disclosure
0
1
0
Unlawful use of personal data
0
1
0
Property damage
0
0
1

As we had 6 cases in 2005, 16 cases in 2006, and in the covered period of 2007 6 cases of rights violations that can be considered hate crame, the chart shows that some of them contained several types of punishable offences. Every case of rights violation contained criminal acts of racial and other discrimination and insult, but in most cases the elements and conditions needed to bring charges under that provision were lacking. Therefore, charges of racial and other discrimination were brought in a total of 2 cases in 2006, and one charge of insult was also brought in that year. An added problem in needing to prove the racial and other discrimination, i.e. that there was use of language that discriminates a certain group, or that the criminal act was committed against a person because of their belonging to a certain group, is in the requirement to prove the harmful intent against that very group, which is not possible in most cases. Therefore, these crimes committed against the LGBTIQ persons remain unproveable, and as a result, they go unpunished.
As for the frequency of committing other criminal acts, the chart shows that violent behaviour is the most common, followed by family violence, which is most disturbing, as it points out that the LGBTIQ persons are discriminated not only in the society, but are also frequently met with a lack of understanding and violent treatment in their own families.

Information related to the persons who contacted the Legal Team
Persons who contacted the Legal Team seeking the Team's services will be henceforward called callers, or applicants. Related to their age, the Legal Team's applicants are in most cases legal adults under the age of 65. Most are male. Queries are mostly related to the caller himself or herself, and other persons.

Applicant's age
Under 18 18-21 21-60 Over 60 Unknown
2005 1 9 38 0 23
2006 3 9 42 0 25
January-May 2007 1 0 18 0 8


Applicant's sexual and gender identity
Male Female Other (intersexual and transgender) Total
2005 41 29 1 71
2006 43 35 1 79
January-May 2007 16 11 0 27

Number of calls
First caller Previous caller Unknown
2005 28 31 12
2006 26 28 25
January-May 2007 12 6 9

Call type
Queries related to the Applicant Queries related to the Applicant and others Queries related to others
2005 21 36 14
2006 23 39 17
January-May 2007 9 11 7

Information related to the injured persons
From early 2005 to late May 2007, the Legal Team received a total of 28 cases in which a person's rights were abused, containing elements indicating hate crime or hate speech (Section 174 Section 1 of the Penal Code – Racial and Other Discrimination). These were mostly cases of threats, assaults, insults or libel due to the victim's sexual orientetion. However, the legal system doesn't treat those crimes as hate crime.
Logged cases note 42 injured persons, i.e. victims, because the injured parties were often in pairs or groups. Most of the injured persons are of legal age, male, and of homosexual or bisexual preference.

Age of injured persons
Under 18 18-21 21-retired Retired Total
2005 1 3 7 0 11
2006 2 6 11 0 19
January-May 2007 1 0 11 0 12

Injured person's sexual and gender identity
Male Female Other (intersexual and transgender) Total
2005 7 3 1 11
2006 11 7 1 19
January-May 2007 7 5 0 12

Injured person's sexual orientation
Homosexual Bisexual Heterosexual Other (i.e. unstated)
2005 6 2 1 2
2006 9 4 3 3
January-May 2007 5 4 1 2

Injured person's education
Less than middle school Middle school University student University degree
2005 1 4 4 2
2006 2 9 6 2
January-May 2007 1 3 5 3

Information related to the Legal Team's responses and case continuation
It should be noted that many actions against the LGBTIQ persons have characteristics of criminal acts, as well as acts that the law sanctions as felonies. The legal system is prone to treat those actions as felonies only, avoiding their criminal prosecution. It is common that hate crime or hate speech goes unrecognised as a criminal act, with the rights violations and violence against the LGBTIQ persons often being qualified as felonies (disturbing the public peace and order, or aggressive behaviour).
The Legal Team is trying to offer various services to render necessary help to the injured persons in seeking and receiving legal aid. Those cases are mostly treated by providing a number of needed or requested services. The type of help that is always offered includes receving queries and responding to them. After that, the most often intervention is giving the case to the other institutions (i.e., to the police, to report abusive behaviour), or some other form of participation. Persons in need of legal aid are provided with services that seem most adequate to their needs. The most common service is holding a meeting to provide further information or counsel, followed by aid in the drafting of documents, and accompaniment or representation in dealing with institutions. If the person is willing to press charges, or to report hate crime to the police, the Legal Team is able to provide the services of an attorney. This type of service is least common, as the LGBTIQ persons are afraid to be stigmatised, and are thus unwilling to report an injury, or retreat from the case and refrain from giving testimony, knowing that the legal case will be overlong and inefficient.

Activist interventions
2005 2006 January-May 2007 Total
Receiving queries and making responses to them
71
79
27
177
Holding a counselling meeting
15
13
7
35
Providing aid in the drafting of documents
6
12
6
24
Relating the cases to other organisations and institutions
27
37
10
74
Accompanied or representation in dealing with institutions
5
10
4
19
The Legal Team's direct contact with institutions
Legal services of an attorney 3 5 2 10
Other 26 35 12 73




Notifying the police
Total number of rights violation cases Rights violation cases submitted to the police or state attorney's office
2005 6 3
2006 16 5
January-May 2007 6 2

Fewer cases are being reported due to the injured person's fear of stigmatisation and lack of trust in the legal system. The cases that are reported to the police or the state attorney's office are usuall not processed in courts due to the procedural mistakes by the authorities (insufficient preparation by the police and the state attorney's office, lack of recognition of hate crime, treatment of crimes as felonies etc.). The only case that was processed and in which the defendant was found guilty was a threat to the activists made from a Defense Ministry computer. The case was processed under heavy media scrutiny, because the threat was made from an official computer of a state institution.
The main problems encountered in dealing with state institutions over hate crime directed against the LGBTIQ persons are indeed the lack of efficiency in preparation and the time needed to reach the verdict, i.e. the inefficiency of Croatian courts in recognising and sanctioning hate crime. No verdicts were made under Article 174, racial and other discrimination agains the LGBTIQ persons. Therefore, the Croatian legal system has yet to recognise and sanction the LGBTIQ discrimination, despite the violence, attacks, threats and insults that these people suffer from, as is apparent from the cases that come to the Legal Team for aid.

Information related to the perpetrators
For a total of 24 threatening acts between early 2005 to late May 2007, the perpetrators are mostly unknown. In 9 cases, the perpetrators are known. In those 9 cases, there have been 13 perpetrators, while 22 perpetrators are suspected in the remaining cases. Therefore, 24 threatening acts were committed by 35 perpetrators, many of them in groups. Of the 35 perpetrators, 9 are considered to be female, and 26 to be male.


3.2. OVERVIEW OF THE HATE CRIME CASES AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION CASES RECEIVED BY THE LEGAL TEAM

3.2.1. OVERVIEW OF THE 2005 CASES
There were some positive developments in 2005, inasmuch as the victims of violence contacted the Legal Team for help more often; we also had a case in which the victims spoke out in public about the violence they suffered. We also received the first request to draft a personal property rights contract, making this the first instance of application of the Law on Same-Sex Union. All this proves that the LGBT persons are getting more and more interested in their rights and willing to use them, which is why the Legal Team has printed the second edition of the Manual for Implementation of Anti-discriminatory Laws in Croatia. The Manual's purpose is to better acquaint the LGBT population with the legal system of the Republic of Croatia and the ways to protect their rights, and inform them on steps they can take if their rights are violated.
The legal team has received several reports on the violence against the LGBTIQ persons. In most cases, those were attacks against gay men, but attacks against lesbians were also reported. The attacks mostly took place in the evenings in downtown Zagreb.
Aside from the cases of violence directed against the LGBTs – abusive behaviour and family violence – we also received numerous reports of threats, blackmail and discrimination in the workplace.
Having contacted the authorities, asking for regular meetings to exchange information and jointly working to improve the safety of our citizens, we were met at the police precinct by a person who isn't able to actively help in these matter, and we were also subjected to queries by the police official whose only purpose could have been activist intimidation, while the official showed minimal interest for the problems we came to discuss and our help in their solving. Therefore, it can be concluded that collaboration with the police in 2005 was poor.
Serious human rights violations of sexual and gender minorities in this year was also evident in the attitude of local police officers during the reporting and processing of the cases of violence, when the victims were homosexuals.

INSTANCES OF HATE CRIME

Poreč, 2005
In early January 2005, the Legal Team was notified by a homosexual living in Poreč, a small Croatian town, of the years of abuse suffered by himself and his partner, living for many years in a same-sex union, by a group of alleged minors (the house of the couple was assaulted by stones and firecrackers, their car was sullied by offensive graffiti, and had its tyres punctured), and of a physical attack in November and a further stoning of their house in December of 2004. The Poreč Police Precinct was notified of the November attack. The police started an inquiry in that case (allegedly interviewing one of the perpetrators), but no results have been made public yet. During the December stoning, the victim was able to identify one of the attackers and talk to his father, and report the identified attacker's address to the police. The abuse continued on December 24, 2004. These events were also reported to the police. The police notified the injured party that one of the perpetrators has been identified, and wrote up the official report. On January 5, 2005, the injured party asked for the report on the latest assault, but was denied with the explanation that he can't receive it as a private person. On the same day, our Legal Team contacted the Poreč Police Precinct, and was told that the victim can receive the report.
The depicted events make us suspicious that the police didn't react in accordance with the law and their duty. Namely, the Article 3 of the Law of Police (NN 129/00) defines the police duty as protecting the property, prevention and discovery of criminal acts, felonies and offences, and their processing and prosecution. The fact that the PC Article 222, Section 1 states that prosecutions are to be made upon the injured party's private charges doesn't lessen the requirement of the Article 3 of the aforementioned Law of Police that the police act within its authority, nor the requirement of Article 4, Section 1 of that Law, in cases of direct threat to people and property.
In the covered period, injured parties requested police protection around twenty times, but the police acted in only three cases. Article 51, Section 1 of the Law of Police states that the police officer has to receive a report on a criminal offence if it is to be prosecuted by official duty, while Section 2 says that the police officer has to inform the injured party if the criminal act has to be prosecuted by private charges, or if there are no components of a criminal act involved. The police intervention in November 2004, as stated by the victim, the police officer told him that he can press private charges against the unnamed perpetrator, because the police can't discover him if the injure party can't identify him. However, the police officer is obliged by Article 51, Section 4 to undertake necessery actions to discover the identity of the perpetrator as defined by Section 2, upon request by the injured party or another person authorised to press civil charges, utilising means unavailable to those individuals. Section 5 also makes the Section 4 inapplicable if there is reasonable doubt that it is a case of the criminal act of injury to personal honour, which is not the case here. The police officer's assertion that the police cannot identify the perpetrator if the injured party isn't able to is intolerable, and such an act is a violation of Article 51, Section 4 of the Law of Police.

Gajnice, 2005
Another example of inadequate police officer reaction took place in August 2005. It was an attack against a same-sex couple, this time in the Zagreb borrough of Gajnice, where one of the suspected perpetrators was a woman. Preceded by a verbal attack via insults, the attack involved a physical asault using sharp objects by at least four perpetrators. One of the victims suffered bodily injury, received emergency surgical treatment at the Sveti Duh General Hospital, and was released to home care. The other victim did not suffer injury, even though the assailants tried to harm him, as he managed to escape. After the assault was reported, and repeated threats by the same persons, to the officer at the local police precinct, he didn't undertake appropriate measures to sanction the criminal act, but refused to act, asking the victim: "What kind of a man are you, afraid of women and children?" After the victims contacted the Legal Team, we suggested to the local State Attorney's Office in zagreb that the case be prosecuted as a criminal act of violence, and, in the case of the mother of the two minors, who participated in the attack using a sharp object, as a neglect or abuse of a minor (own child) from Article 213, Section 1 of the PC. The case is still pending with the State Attorney's office.

MORH, 2004
In October 2005 first court ruling was made in the case of a threat made to homosexuals in Croatia. On October 15, 2004, the official Iskorak e-mail received three threatening notes addressed to the president of the organisation and other members, conforming to the depiction of the criminal act of threat from Article 129, Section 2 of the Penal Code. Checking the server owned by Iskorak it was determined that the e-mails were sent by the user of the IP address 194.152.240.10 owned by the Computer Systems Division of the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Croatia (MORH). All information on the case were submitted to the appropriate police precinct, and the criminal act was investigated by both the Ministry of the Interior and MORH. On October 21, 2004, the local State Attorney's Office was advised to undertake a criminal investigation against an unknown perpetrator. Through the Office for Human Rights of the Croatian Government, we received a statement from MORH on December 23, 2004, saying that the officers of the Military Police have performed operational investigations and determined the identity of the perpetrator. Therefore, based on Article 186, Section 186 of the ZKP, a special report was made to the local State Attorney's Office in Zagreb. On October 10, 2005, the District Court in Zagreb sentenced the defendent J.K., based on Article 129, Section 2 of the PC, Article 129, Section 1 of the PC, and the Article 60 of the PC, a prison term in the duration of one year, suspending the sentence based on the Article 67 of the PC.

CONCLUSION: RESULTS OF RESPONSES IN 2005
Following and responding to the cases of human rights violations of the LGBTIQ persons have determined that a systematic education of police and courts is needed to properly sanction violence and discrimination, and Croatian laws have to me amended through a definition of qualified types of criminal acts of hate crime. Also, it was determined that it is important to collaborate with law enforcement bodies (primarily police, but also the State Attorney's Office) to increase efficiency in sanctioning hate crime. Focusing on this goal has lead to the positive example of collaboration with the Organised Crime Unit of the Zagreb Police Command late that year, in the case of the unauthorised distribution of a personal address book, containing a list of homosexual persons, divulged by the media to the public in an inappropriate, sensationalist manner. Analysis of the cases noted the importance of securing legal aid to the victims of violence and discrimination, and of informing LGBTIQ persons on their legal rights. Therefore, the Legal Team has in June 2005, with the financial help of the Office for Human Rights of the Croatian Government, opened a new public hotline where LGBT persons can learn of their rights and receive legal aid. Also, with the financial aid of the Astrea Fundation, an information manual on the rights of the LGBTIQ persons under the official legal acts in the Republic of Croatia was published.

3.2.2. OVERVIEW OF THE 2006 CASES
The online legal advice service offered by the www.gay.hr website received a total of 27 queries in 2006. Of that number, ten queries were made on sanctionable acts committed against sexual and gender minorities, as follows: three queries about criminal acts against personal honour, two queries about various threats, one query about discrimination, and one query about violent behaviour in the family. The Legal Team also received queries for information about rights, and three queries about legal age for various acts (i.e., age of consent for minors). The rest of the queries are mostly concerned to the extent of the rights of the same-sex unions (registration of the union, right to share joint property, right to inherit, application of the international law, right to citizenship – eight queries). Other queries related to the right of women living in a same-sex union to medically-assisted pregnancy, denying the homosexual persons the right to donate blood, discriminatory policy of banks toward same-sex partners, and treating the spreading of venereal disease as a criminal act. Two persons who queried about criminal acts done at their injury later turned to the Legal Team for further aid, while the Legal Team has no data on whether the other applicants later pressed charges against perpetrators of violence against them.
In 2006, the Legal Team handled a total of 35 cases, 23 of them individual cases assisted more continuously over a period of time. Of those, 16 cases contained criminal acts committed against several persons based on their sexual orientation.

Violent behaviour
There have been a total of three criminal acts of violence recorded against several persons. In all three cases police was notified, and in one case criminal charges were filed to the local State Attorney's office; it was dismissed, and the injured persons filed a lawsuit at the local District court to continue persecuting the perpetrators. The criminal charge filed by the police in the case of violence in the Santos Club did not make it clear that the perpetrators' actions could lead to a criminal act of violence. The case was instead presented as participation in a brawl, which certainly was not a punishable offence in the given case. The lack of criminal investigation and evidence gathering through witness testimonies has certainly lead to such an interpretation.

Discrimination
Elements of discrimination have been established in four cases. In two cases, actions were taken through the office of Gender Equality Attorney, in one case criminal charges were filed against the suspects, and in one case prosecution is still expected.

Family violence
Family violence was established in three cases, two of them concerning minors. One minor reported the case to the police, and the local Social Work Centre was notified. In the second case, the Legal Team reacted before the local social work centre and the office of the Gender Equality Attorney. In the third case, the adult victim did not wish to report violence done against them to the police.
The way of handling such cases lead the legal team to conclude that the police reacted correctly in the cases reported to them. However, the local Social Work Centres reacted insufficiently, with the social workers displaying insensitivity towards the problems of homosexual minors. In one case, this lead the minor to leave home and go missing for a few months, causing a police search in which the Legal Team participated.

Criminal acts against personal honour
Several persons contacted the Legal Team with the complaint that their personal data was published on several different blogs. The Legal Team notified the server owner, but they ignored the request to remuove such data. There were no grounds for the Legal Team to act in its official capacity, and there is no information on whether any of the injured parties pressed private charges.

Criminal acts of threats
This criminal act was committed once, but the injured party did not wish to press charges.

Other interventions with the local State Attorney's Offices
The Legal Team filed criminal charges against two journalists for spreading false and alarming rumours. In another case, the Team suggested that the local State Attorney's Office in Split to start an investigation based on the possibility that the suspects committed a crime of violence against several women, citizens of the Republic of Spain.

Interventions with other bodies of state and court authority, and institutions
In the case of the priest confined in the Vrapče Asylum against his will, the Legal Team officially noted him that there is grounds to suspect that his confinement in a psychiatric ward is not validly grounded, informing also the County Court in Zagreb based on the provisions of the Law of Protection of Persons with Mental Problems. After the Legal Team's reaction, the confined person was released from the hospital.


Concluding notes
The analysis of the case structure and number shows that this year is marked by an increase in reported crimes based on the victims' sexual orientation, with the effect of an increase in participation of injured parties in using legal apparatus to protect themselves. The increase in the number of recorded cases, however, still doesn't mean that crimes against sexual and gender minorities are actually on the rise in 2006, but that they're being reported more often, as those persons are more ready to seek help and show more trust in the legal system's efficiency.


CASES OF HATE CRIME AND VARIOUS THREATS TO HUMAN RIGHTS
This section lists several cases as examples, with the note that these are not all cases, and that special care was taken to protect the victims' anonymity.

Family violence in the case of D.P. and H.V.
On February 22, 2006, we received report from D.P. (50) and H.V. (18) on the criminal act of death threat from Article 129 Section 2 of the Penal Code committed against D.P. and family violence committed against H.V. by his parents. At the time of the report, both injured parties were involved romantically, but H.V. lived with his parents, who strenuously opposed his relationship with D.P. The Legal Team let the injured parties know about the possible legal steps that could be taken in this case.
As the threats continued, along with violence, police had to intervene twice. The injured parties did not press criminal charges for the acts of threats or family violence, even though the police pressed felony charges against the father of H.V. for disturbing the public peace and order. On August 18, the case was closed, as the conflicted parties managed to reach a satisfactory arrangement, making it unnecessary to take legal action.

Work-related discrimination against R.B.
On January 4, 2006, the Legal Team hotline received a call from R.B., complaining of discrimination due on his sexual orientation, which lead to him losing his job. On January 9, 2006, members of the Legal Team interviewed the injured R.B. The relevant part stated that the injured R.B. worked in a government office, where he claimed he could not get his apprenticeship extended because of his sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the length of time between his dismissal and his contacting of the Legal Team did not allow for a civil lawsut to be brought. However, criminal charges are still possible in this case. Further care of the case was taken by the Gender Equality Attorney's Office.

Work-related discrimination against Dubravka Naumovski due to her marital status
On March 20, 2006, we found media reports about the case of Dubravka Naumovski, who lost her job with the Croatian TV (HRT) due to her divorce. In our later contact, Mrs. Naumovski told us that she worked as a sign language interpreter in the Religious Programme of the HRT. After the news of her divorce became known, the editor-in-chief of the Religious Programme, Father Antun Trstenjak, told her that he can no longer employ her due to many viewers' complaints about her being divorced. He told her that she worked well thus far and that he is sorry to fire her, as he doesn't know who else to give this job to. He asked her to recommend someone. This is why me made an urgent open letter to the Human Rights Office of the Croatian Government, Gender Equality Office of the Croatian Government, Human and Minority Rights Commission of the Croatian Parliament, Gender Equality Commission of the Croatian Parliament, and the Gender Equality Attorney, stating that discrimination due to marital status is outlawed by Article 6, Section 2 of the Law of Gender Equality, and that it's a criminal act of violation of citizens' equality from Article 106, Section 1 of the Penal Code. We asked HRT for a response about the case, pointing out that we will bring charges against those responsible if the response is not given. We also pointed out that the CEDAW Commission and other international organisations will be notified of this case. On April 12, 2006, we received a response from the Director of the HRT, also sent to the Human Rights Office of the Croatian Government. It stated that the Programme Coucil of HRT has, on its meeting of March 22, 2006, dismissed the reasons given by Father Trstenjak for the dismissal of Mrs. Naumovski. Mrs. Naumovski resumed her work with the Religious Programme of the HRT on April 9, 2006.

Custody case of Mrs. A.P.
On June 5, 2006, the Legal Team was contacted by Mrs. A.P. about her custody of her children, after which we held a meeting with her. Mrs. A.P. was romantically involved with another woman at the time of her contacting the Legal Team. She had filed for divorce from her husband. That marriage produced two children, now aged three and nine. The husband filed for custody of their children and stated before the Social Work Centre that his wife is a lesbian, and so the children have to live with him. However, in the court case, sexual orientation of Mrs. A.P. hasn't been discussed, aside from her psychiatric evaluation. In her divorce case, Mrs. A.P. has legal counsel. The Legal Team
has no further info on the outcome of the case at this time.

Violence in a same-sex union against G.B.
On June 18, 2006, the Legal Team was contacted by G.B., complaining that his partner in a same-sex union has beaten him up. As he received bodily injury, he wanted to press private charges against his former partner with a view towards compensation. He asked an attorney to take his case, but the attorney refused, stating that "he doesn't want to deal with gay issues". Taking into account that in this case a crime of bodily harm from Article 98 of the Penal Code was committed, this didn't constitute grounds for action by the Legal Team by official duty, so another attorney took up the case, representing the client in a civil court case.

Violence in the Santos Club
On March 4, 2006, between 3.40 and 4.00 AM in the Santos Club in Zagreb, Svetice b.b., later suspects P.V., K.S., and I.S., physically attacked the guests of that club during the Iskorak party. The suspects entered the club uninvited, physically assaulting those present inside, injuring them with fists, feet and glass bottles, yelling: "Faggot, get out! Come on, faggot! I saw two faggots fucking, and it's disgusting! I'll kill you, faggot! Sickos, sickos, I'll kill you all!" and suchlike. Several people were injured in the assault, and five persons were taken to hospital, where they were treated and released to home care. The case was handled by the Maksimir Precinct of the Zagreb police, who stated that it was a felony against public peace and order, a public brawl that disturbs the citizens' peace from Article 13 of the Law on Offences against Public Peace and Order. After the police publically denounced such an act, the suspects were processed.
On March 8, 2006, the Legal Team brought criminal charges against the suspects with the local State Attorney's Office in Zagreb, for qualified crime of violent behaviour from Article 331, Section 2 of the Penal Code, and crime of racial and other discrimination from Article 174, Section 1 of the Penal Code.
On March 10, 2006, officers from Police Precinct IV in Zagreb filed criminal charges with the local State Attorney's Office in Zagreb against the suspects for committing a crime from Article 331 of the Penal Code, stating that "on March 4, 2006, around 4 AM in the Santos Nightclub in Zagreb, Svetice b.b., they entered an altercation with L. S., P. I., N. I., Z. D., M. J., T. M., M .L., and F. N, which came to blows, causing mild physical injury to T. M., Z. D., and M. L." The charges further stated that "on the given day, the Santos Nightclub held a homosexual party, and the suspects P.V., K.S., and I.S. entered the aforementioned club around 4 AM."
With the ruling of the local State Attorney's Office in Zagreb, the police's criminal charges were dismissed on April 28, 2006, because such a wording of the criminal charge made it impossible to ascertain that it was a crime of violent behaviour, instead making the State Attorney's Office conclude that it is a description of brawl participation.
On May 30, 2006, injured Z.D., M.J., I.P., and T.M. filed a motion against the suspects before the District Court in Zagreb for the crime of violent behaviour combined with the crime of racial and other discrimination. The Legal Team hasn't received the response of the local State Attorney's Office in Zagreb to the criminal charge it brought itself at the time of this report's preparation. Also pending is the felony case against the suspects for a felony against public peace and order, at the Felony Court in Zagreb. Both cases have been taken by an attorney to represent the injured parties before the court.

The case of N.N.1., a minor
On July 4, 2006, the Legal Team was contacted by N.Np.1. (27) from Z., claiming that he entered an intimate relationship with a minor, N.N.1. (15) from Z., who is abused by his parents because of his sexual orientation. N.Np.1. told the Legal Team that he met N.N.1. several months previously and that they saw each other often since. The minor, N.N.1., told his parents about his homosexuality in early 2006, and his parents have been abusing him since then. N.Np.1. said that N.N.1. was mostly abused by his mother, grounding him, shutting him in the house, threatening him, and humiliating him, while his fellow students mocked him after finding out. Allegedly the parents asked N.N.1. why he didn't tell them about his homosexuality earlier, as they would have taken him to the doctor to help him. Allegedly N.N.1. couldn't take it anymore and ran from home on June 21, 2006, hiding in the apartment of N.Np.1. in Z., so N.Np.1. took him to the police on June 30, 2006, after the parents reported him missing. N.Np.1. stated that he previously asked the local Social Work Centre and Children's Rights Attorney for help. Furthermore, the social worker in the local Social Work Centre in S. told N.Np.1. that she wonders how N.N.1. could be homosexual before the age of sixteen, and that the psychologist he spoke to in the Children's Rights Attorney's Office said that N.N.1. should be psychologically evaluated to ascertain if N.N.1. is "truly homosexual, or if that is just his phase." The social worker from S. was supposed to visit N.N.1. in his home on July 5, 2006.
On July 6, 2006, N.Np.1. contacted the Legal Team again, stating that he spoke to N.N.1., who told him that the social worker from S. visited him in his home and spoke with his parents, telling the mother to tell N.N.1. not to go out at all, as otherwise he will be committed to the Home for Children with Behavioural Problems in Dugave. On July 7, 2006, N.Np.1. contacted the Legal Team again, stating that in the night from July 6 to July 7, 2006, the mother of N.N.1. phoned him with insults and threats, saying that N.N.1. ran from home again, and that during the day N.N.1. phoned him himself, saying that he ran from the country so that noone can find him. The Police Precinct in S. became involved in the search for N.N.1.
The Legal Team sent the Recommendation for Intervention to the Social Work Centre in S. on July 7, 2006, according to the provisions of the Law of Social Care, so that N.N.1. can have proper education upon his return to his own home, with special instructions to be given to his parents, so that N.N.1. be spared from further abuse. The Legal Team also notified of this the Children's Rights Attorney's Office, the Gender Equality Attorney's Office, and the Human Rights Office of the Croatian Government. The Children's Rights Attorney's Office was asked to request a report on this case from the Social Work Centre in S. In September 2006 the Legal Team worked with the Police Precinct in S. and the Criminal Police Sector in Z. in searching for N.N.1. To aid with finding N.N.1., computer data from the www.gay.hr server was also searched. In October 2006, the Legal Team was verbally informed that N.N.1. has been find in S., close to the place of residence of N.Np.1. Therefore, criminal charges were brought against N.Np.1., suspected of committing several crimes against marriage, family and youth. The Legal Team continues to monitor this case to further supervise the family and ensure a safe and healthy living for the minor, N.N.1. Our co-operation with the police officers has been satisfactory, while we're dissatisfied with the attitude of the Social Work Centre in S.

The Case of N.N.2. (a minor) and N.Np.3. (31)
On August 17, 2006, the Legal Team was contacted by N.Np.2. from S., asking about the legal status of N.N.2., a minor from K.Š., who is abused by his parents because of his romantic relationship with N.Np.3. from S.N. N.Np.2. stated that the parents of N.N.2. found out about his romantic relationship with N.Np.3., which is why they abuse their son – limiting his communication with others, escorting him to school and waiting for him after classes. On September 18, 2006, the father assaulted the minor, N.N.2., causing superficial head wounds and making him seek medical assistance. Following the Protocol of Action in cases of family violence, the ER staff notified the police, which intervened immediately, visiting the parents of N.N.2. However, N.N.2. was afraid to come back home, so N.Np.2. asked the Legal Team to find a proper shelter for N.N.2. in S. until his family situation gets resolved, which is what the Legal Team did. However, the Legal Team couldn't find a proper shelter for N.N.2. in S. Therefore, N.N.2. spent the night at a friend's house and went to the Police Precinct in S. accompanied by N.N.1. on September 19, 2006, where he was processed, and the social worker in S. was called to come. She took N.N.2. home and told him that there's nothing she can do, and that he should call the police if the parents hit him again. N.Np.2. also stated that the parents of N.N.2. made threatening and insulting calls to N.Np.3. at an undetermined time, and that they also made several physical assaults at him.
After police and the Social Work Centre in S. intervened on September 19, 2006, the Legal Team did not receive new information on violence against N.N.2. Therefore, no further action by the authorities was requested, the more so because the Legal Team wanted to avoid an escalation within the family of N.N.2. As for the authorities' actions, the Legal Team considers the medical and police procedures performed to be satisfactory. However, the action of the social worker from S. is considered inappropriate, because she did not ensure the safety of N.N.2., a minor, within his family.

Violence committed against N.N.3. (17), a minor
On September 1, 2006, the Legal Team was contacted by N.N.3., a minor from Đ, reporting that a crime of violent behaviour was committed against him. In the phone call, he stated that on August 31, 2006, he was walking with his friends down the main street in Đ., and that he was assaulted by a younger male acquaintance of his, insulting him with shouts of "Faggot!" attempting to hit him with a bar stool found outside a café, and hitting him on the head with a glass ashtray, after which the victim managed to escape. However, the assailant caught up with him in another street and started punching him again, until other people came to his aid and diverted the assailant from his intent of causing further bodily harm to the victim. N.N.3. asked for medical assistance that same evening, which was given him by the ER unit in Đ. On September 5, 2006, the Legal Team visited the injured party in his place of residence. After talking to him, the Legal Team escorted the victim to the local police precinct, where he reported the event. On September 6, 2006, the victim informed the Legal Team that the police acted on the report and visited the assailant and his parents, who later promised the victim's parents that such attacks won't happen again. This lead the injured party and his parents to conclude that there is no point to pressing further charges, as the educational measures against the assailant will be sufficient. Therefore, the Legal Team did not file criminal charges against the assailant, who is a minor, for the criminal act of violent behaviour from Article 331, Section 1 of the Penal Code. By the time of the preparation of this report, the Legal Team has not received new reports of actions directed against N.N.3.


3.2.3. OVERVIEW OF THE 2007 CASES

January 10, 2007
The client asked the Legal Team for help, claiming that he was a victim of criminal offences of libel and threat. He said that from July to September 2006, he employed a person who didn’t fulfil the professional requirements of his post, and that this lead him to cancel his contract with that person. The client owns the D Sauna, catering to gay men. After that, the client claims that the employee threatened to report the D Sauna to the sanitary inspection as a hotbed of infectious diseases. Furthermore, the employee accused the client that conditions in the sauna were such that he was also infected by a venereal disease while working there. The client reported that the employee disseminated such libel through public forums on www.gay.hr and www.gayromeo.com.
The client said that some of the threats were delivered to him by SMS messages. However, the content of his SMS inbox did not reveal any evidence of threats. The more explicit threats were posted by the employee on the forum of the GayRomeo website.
The client was informed that the case doesn’t fall within the jurisdiction of the Legal Team. He was warned that in the case of criminal offence of libel the criminal prosecution against offender could be induced by civil lawsuit. As for the threats, since they were posted on the GayRomeo forums, they can't be used as, because GayRomeo is not within the jurisdiction of Croatian authorities.

February 10, 2007
The client said that she has been in a same-sex union with her partner for several years. Her partner wanted to have a baby so she got pregnant with her best male friend. The client wanted to know what their legal position in relation to the child is, since they are in a same-sex union, and whether the father would have some parental rights. The client put the similar question to the on-line counseling center a year ago.
The client was informed that father of the child could try to obtain his parental rights by civil lawsuit. The fact that the client is in the same-sex union with the child's mother has nothing to do with the parental rights and obligations of the father. Should the fact of the mother's life in a same-sex union be brought in any eventual civil procedure, the Legal Team pledged its support.

February 15, 2007
The minor client (17) claimed to be a victim of domestic violence. He is from the island of Pelješac. He described that his mother puts psychological pressure on him, although she hasn't been physically violent towards him so far. He wanted to know whether he could legally obtain a capacity to decide for himself where he wants to live before the age of 18. He also noted that his parents take him to a psychiatrist who claims that homosexuality can be effectively cured.
The client was told that the system of social welfare offers no adequate response to his situation, especially because there has been no physical violence against him.
As for the psychiatric treatment, the client was warned that his parents have a right to decide whether he should undergo a treatment. However, the medical treatment has to be reasonable and in this case any psychiatric treatment aimed to change or to correct the client’s sexual orientation has no reasonable grounds. Therefore, it would be possible to raise criminal complaint against the psychiatrist because of criminal offence of non-consensual medical treatment. Further legal help was offered to the client in a criminal procedure against psychiatrist, should the need for it arise.

May 2, 2007
The two male clients, G.S. and Z.M., asked the Legal Team for help after being violently attacked. They said that on the night of April 29 they were celebrating Z.M.'s birthday at the Global Club in Zagreb. They planned to leave around 4 AM to catch a tram for home at about 4.44 AM. After they walked out, they noticed two men, commenting that this is the bar where “faggots” go. The clients went by Hatzova Street to the tram station, while those two men followed them. At the corner of the Hatzova and Petrinjska Streets, one of the men asked the clients: “Do you have any alcohol?” After one of the clients answered “No”, one offender asked: “Shall we go to the bushes?” After Z.M. replied rudely, the offenders attacked him and the client, G.S., tried to help him. During the attack, one more offender came to join in the attack. After an offender used pepper spray against the client G.S., both clients started to run through the nearby park, trying to find a local police precinct. The offenders followed them again. After a few moments, the victims entered the First Precinct at the Strossmayer Square and reported the incident to the police.
The Legal Team asked the clients to get written confirmation of the event from the police. The clients submitted that document shortly after. From the contents of the written confirmation made by the police it could be seen that police qualified the event as a misdemeanor against public peace and order, and that both clients are recognized as offenders as well. The perpetrators were identified by the police. However, once again the police didn’t recognize this event as a hate crime based on victims’ sexual orientation.
The Legal Team has forwarded this whole case to an attorney, who will represent the clients before the court.


EXAMPLES OF OTHER VIOLATIONS

February 19, 2007
Upon arrival at their office, the activists of the Legal Team found, at the doorbell, a note stating: “Serbian pigs, the slaughtering day is today!” The office of the Legal Team is situated within the offices of the lesbian group Kontra. Kontra shares the office with the Women's Centre. Therefore, it was not clear who was the threat directed at. The event has been reported to the police, and police officers of the 5th Police Precinct came to the scene and took photos of the messages and interviewed witnesses.

February 26, 2007
Upon arrival at their office, the activists of the Forum for Freedom in Education noticed on their doorbell a note saying: “Death to the faggots, Soros”. It was of the same kind as the one posted a week earlier at the doorbell of the Women's Centre. With the message, the symbol “U” was posted to the main door, and at the walls it was written “Death to faggots” and “NDH”. The activists of the Legal Team came to the crime scene and informed police officers from the 5th Police Precinct on the similar incident that was reported one week previously. The police officers interviewed witnesses and took photos, but didn’t dust for fingerprints. Similar incidents was reported from few other human rights organizationes.


3.3. OVERVIEW OF THE MEDIA DEPICTIONS OF HATE SPEECH

3.3.1. REPORTS ON MEDIA COVERAGE AND ACTIONS TAKEN IN 2005
The media are insufficiently acquainted with the terminology proper for the discussions of the LGBT community, often promoting discrimination through their terminology (fags, dykes, she-male for transgender persons, normal couples versus gay couples). This is connected to the uninformed, lackadaisical attitude found in texts. There is just an attempt to treat the LGBT rights as human rights, while most coverage doesn't treat them as such. In dealing with this subject matter, the media mostly focuses on sensationalism, "social occurrences" or its sexual aspects.
We appeal once again not to use the incorrect and inappropriate term "homosexualism", and to use the correct form "homosexuality" instead.
An overview of the regular programming of Croatian TV stations shows that translations are often faulty, rendering the English word gay, used for homosexuals, as the derogatory peder, while the word straight, used for heterosexuals, as normalan, which implies that homosexuals aren't normal. This is why we wrote to HRT, RTL, Nova TV and OTV in late November 2004, asking them to render gay as gej or homoseksualac, and pointing out the law clauses that sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation. We received the official response from the HRT Director's Office that our objections are valid, and that they will try to avoid such mistakes in the future. We did not receive any response from the other TV stations.
As it was unclear for a long time why the clip "Ljubav je ljubav", made by the Lesbian Society in Rijeka, LORI, is considered unfit for broadcast, we asked the HRT Director's Office on December 9, 2004, to give us a statement about it. The official statement, received on December 9, 2004, says that "it is the ingerence of the General Director of the HRT to decide about free broadcasting of humanitarian clips supporting common causes of particular importance, which is not the case with this clip." Therefore, we consider the reaction of the HRT General Director inappropriate, because it's clear that the need to broadcast a clip that promotes tolerance and respect for people of different sexual orientation and affirms the human rights of homosexuals is great, and that broadcasting this clip would improve the social standing of this minority group.
LGBT subjects are encountered in the Croatian media through coverage of events (initiatives for change in existing legislature, roundtable discussions, LGBT Pride events, LGBT rights campaigns), or are related to entertainment. The subject isn't brought up, or is very rare in any other context, such as society, health, culture etc.
It is interesting that the subject comes up in the interviews with increasing frequency. On one hand, this is a very current topic and every Croatian public person has to be able to put forward their view on same-sex orientation at the moment. On the other hand, homosexuality is something intriguing, a rare, unusual occurence that will "spice up" the interview, making it more interesting for the audience.
The analysis of the ways this subject matter is depicted shows that the attitude is mostly neutral, i.e. the media covers only the facts. However, it's worrying that almost ten percent of the articles are discriminatory. Such writing exemplifies intolerance, insults, strengthening social prejudice against LGBT persons, and discrimination. Discrimination is apparent in hate speech, offensive terminology, denial of visibility, limitation of human and citizens' rights, supporting the marginalisation and social isolation, spreading of the attitude that the same-sex orientation has to remain a private aspect of the indivitual, that the LGBT community has no right to seek equal rights with the heterosexuals in the area of society and legislation, etc. Thus reflecting the homo/bi/transphobia, such coverage serves as a fertile ground for a continuation of the physical and/or verbal aggression towards the LGBT persons. In them, the LGBT persons are called unnatural, perverse, and/or sick, and homosexuality is a perversion, a disorder, and/or a sin. Furthermore, written media is still mostly sensationalist; same-sex orientation is treated as exotic, as something outside the everyday life, and alternative. Bias, prejudice and stereotyping is most often encountered in the context of principles of religious communities and their hetero-patriarchal framework promoted by the media; the spirit of tradition; the natality policy of Croatia; the name-calling and treatment of homo/bisexuality as a sickness or perversion, etc. These types of articles are usually found in editorials.
Negative writing is mostly encountered in columns, readers' letters, and in the Glas koncila. It is worth mentioning that the Church has been very vehemently opposed to the same-sex-oriented persons' rights this year, and that some of its spokespeople publicly promote discrimination and hate speech (i.e., homosexuality is listed among the sins of our time, alongside Nazism or terrorism!).
On the other hand, 10% of the writing affirms the LGBT issues, pointing out the discrimination against lesbians and gays both in society and in legislature. It should be added that the media are readily publishing the responses and statements by the LGBT societies. Also, there is a certain number of journalists within the media who are eager to actively promote the rights of sexual and gender minorities.
Analysing the amount and type of LGBTIQ coverage in the media, the following conclusion arises: homosexuality is covered most often, in 84% of the articles (gay subjects still dominate over lesbian subjects), while bisexuality is mentioned very rarely (3%). In written media, transgender and transsexual issues are completely marginalised (6%), and it is apparent that the journalists are uninformed and prone to misinterpretation. Queer and intersexual issues are not covered by the media.
The media have only recently started to use the LGBT acronym. They are often at a loss as to its meaning. This is very important, as the media's insistence on the term homosexuality enforces the binary opposition heterosexuality/homosexuality. Persons of same-sex orientation are mentioned most often, which excludes the totality of different sexual orientations, as well as gender identity and its expression.
A positive change is apparent, compared to the analysis of written media coverage in 2003. However, prejudice and stereotypes, uninformed media professionals, and discrimination apparent in the media point to the need of further action to educate the media, sensitise the journalists, and create better collaboration.
The fact that homosexuality has been increasingly becoming a subject of public discussion over the past two years resulted in the rights of sexual minorities becoming a very common issue in discussing the views of the political and social personalities.
Such was the case during the presidential election campaign in December 2004 and January 2005. Some presidential candidates presented homophobic views, while others, who used to hold discriminatory views made conscious effort to overcome their prejudice, even though they didn't fully support the rights of the sexual minorities. The rights of the sexual minorities were supported by presidential candidate Đurđa Adlešić. President Stjepan Mesić said in one of the interviews about the Domagoj Margetić abduction case: "I know from credible sources that he has been kidnapped by a group of homosexuals. What they did with him, I wouldn't know." We responded to this statement by the President, asking him in what way these credible sources discovered the sexual orientation of Mr. Margetić, and how is it possible that the actual crime of abduction is interpreted by the sexual orientation of the perpetrators. We also asked President Mesić to officially state his answers within 15 days.
The President apologised for his statement at a press conference.
On March 29, 2004, HRT 1 broadcast the programme Res publica: Ekumena – Relationship between Religion and Sexuality, in which journalist Verica Sikora, reporting on the life of youth in Osijek, said: "Unfortuntely, we must state that our youth lives in a hell of drugs, that the age of the first sexual experiece is getting ever lower, and that even among the young there are those with homosexual experiences."
Iskorak sent an open letter to the Gender Equality Commission of the Croatian Parliament, which forwarded it to the State Gender Equality Attorney's Office. After analysing the content of the programme in question, the Office stated on March 1, 2004, that the journalist called homosexual experiences "bad", thus stating a value judgement that opposes Article 6, Section 2 of the Law of Gender Equality and Article 21, Section 1 of the Law of Same-Sex Unions, and recommended that the HRT programmes do not feature material that opposes the word and intent of the laws and regulations in the future.
We would also like to comment given by Prof. Dubravka Hribar, the head of the Chair of Family Law at the Law Faculty in Zagreb, during the conference of the Teen STAR organisation, which is currently available on the organisation's website:
"We don't see any discrepancy between the Teen STAR Complete Sexual Education Programme and the provisions of the Croatian Constitution, the Convention of the Rights of the Child, nor the Law of Family. This programme promotes a sexual education that offers a responsible attitude towards sexuality, and thus protects the child's right to healthy life.
"Advocating the desirability of a full and balanced family is not discriminatory, especially when the programme's implementation sufficiently emphasises the equality of all people, especially children, regardless of various issues that might characterise them (among them life in a single-parent family).
"We feel that the criticism of the Programme is malicious, that certain attitudes have been taken out of context and misinterpreted, and that the entire text is negatively intoned, hiding the agenda of certain groups of people who are not as prominently featured in the society."
We think that by composing such an opinion, which calls the sexual minorities "not as prominently featured in the society", implying that they are less important, and which supports a discriminatory programme, Prof. Hribar has gone against the articles of the Law of Gender Equality by explicitly supporting discrimination in the Croatian educational system. We also want to point out that Prof. Hribar has previously, in her interview in Vjesnik, stated that "homosexual marriage is unnatural".
The following persons gave homophobic statements in media during 2005: Živko Kustić, Zdravko Mamić, Otto Barić, Anto Kovačević, Ljubo Česić, Boris Mikšić, Petar Grašo, Željka Fattorini, and others.
We believe that such attitudes are primarily caused by the ignorance of prominent public figures when it comes to human sexuality.
The Legal Team has submitted one motion for censure before the Council of Honour of the Croatian Journalists' Association in 2005, which was accepted by the Counsil. It was found that the journalist transgressed against the Code heavily, and he was publicly reprimanded.

3.3.2. REPORTS ON MEDIA COVERAGE AND ACTIONS TAKEN IN 2006
The parliamentary discussion of the Registered Partnership Act took a lot of public space in 2006. Generally, the media correctly covered the progress of parliamentary discussion with criticism directed towards homophobic statements of some MPs. In any case, the greatest attention was directed towards the statements of MP Lucija Čikeš who said that the “whole universe is heterosexual, from the fly to the elephant” and towards the theories of MP Marijan Mlinarić on the evolution of homosexuality. A total of 19 texts were published by 24 sata, Jutarnji list, Večernji list, Slobodna Dalmacija and Glas Istre.
Correct media coverage was also observed in the case of the violent attack on the Rainbow party of Iskorak in the Santos Club. On the other hand, there was less public attention on the introduction of the hate crime definition into the Penal Code.
The Legal Team brought a petition before the Council of Honour of the Croatian Journalists Association against journalist Josip Jović. He wrote a text entitled Gay Missionaries, published on July 7, 2006, in Slobodna Dalmacija, in which he violated the Croatian Journalists’ Code of Honour. He commented on the Zagreb Pride event held in Zagreb in 2006 and stated: “We're dealing with a militant, organized satanic sect, gay warriors or gay missionaries, who aggressively impose a novel view on the world.” At the meeting held on October 16, 2006, the Council of Honour accepted our petition and punished journalist Josip Jović by a public reprimand.
Furthermore, the Legal Team brought a petition before the Council of Honour of the Croatian Journalists' Association against the main editor of Slobodna Dalmacija, Mladen Pleše. He published a reader's letter, written by Branimir Lukšić, under the title Homosexuality Erodes the Family on July 12, 2006. At their meeting held on October 16, 2006, the Council of Honour rejected our petition with the explanation that the main editor did not violate the Code since he only published the attitude of one reader in the section which is provided for that purpose.
Croatian media also directed much attention and criticism at the issue of health education in public schools and the work of the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport.
For the Legal Team, the greatest failure of the Croatian media can be detected in the egregiously sensationalist coverage of a group of homosexual tourists' stay on the island of Hvar. The coming of these tourists to Hvar was announced at the very beginning of July 2006, almost two months before their arrival, in an article by Merita Arslani published in the Jutarnji list. On July 4, 2006, an article by Saša Jadrijević-Tomas in the Slobodna Dalmacija, entitled Hvar: An EU Homosexual Summit, stated that the island of Hvar would be "under invasion of gay guests from the whole of Europe from the middle of July till the end of August." Such coverage resulted in diverse reactions in the local community, which were also covered in the media.
Concerned by the public attention directed towards their clients, representatives of the Happy Gay Holidays tourist agency asked the Legal Team of Iskorak and Kontra for help. Representatives of the Legal Team stayed on the island of Hvar August 19-26 and monitored the development of the situation. Throughout the time of their residence the hotel was secured by the police. This was particularly because of an August 18 article in the Večernji list, written by Aurelija Kupanovac and headlined Torcida Is Coming to Beat Up the Homosexuals on Hvar. Following such public coverage, the Legal Team alerted the police authorities in the County of Split-Dalmatia and also informed the French Embassy in Zagreb. In the next few days, a series of articles written by Aurelija Kupanovac and Sandra Veljković was published. These articles described incidents that never happened, as the atmosphere on Hvar was very peaceful and the impression was quite different to the media description. On August 22 the same journalists published an article entitled Wild and Naked in Front of the Church in the Večernji list. It dealt with the behaviour of tourists who the authors said were of homosexual orientation. The text stated that the night before publication a naked young man walked in front of cathedral, of which a photograph was put within the article. In a telephone conversation with one of the representatives of the tourist agency, Ms Kupanovac herself said that the photograph in front of Church did not depict a man of homosexual orientation. The publication of this text resulted in greater police intervention. For this reason, the Legal Team lodged a criminal complaint against the authors, suspecting them of committing the criminal offence of dissemination of disturbing and false rumours. Furthermore, the Legal Team lodged a petition against the journalists of the Večernji list before the Council of Honour of the Croatian Journalists' Association.
On the one hand, the media were sensible towards the rights of sexual and gender minorities in relation to the proposition of Registered Partnership Act, the violent attack in the Santos Club, and introduction of hate crimes into the Criminal Code; on the other hand, they embellished the stay of the tourists on the island of Hvar with full sensationalism and a high level of homophobia.
The tendency of more correct reporting by daily and weekly newspapers with higher circulations is observed, while newspapers with smaller circulations from different regions of Croatia and especially local newspapers express a homophobic approach to this subject.

Hate Speech
A total of four cases are related to hate speech by individuals in the public arena, one of which was resolved by settlement, while three perpetrators had criminal charges filed against them, two of which were dismissed. Accordingly, one prosecuting motion was filed too. The previous practice indicated that the local State Attorney's Offices dismiss criminal charges because they find that the perpetrators did not have explicit intent to spread hatred against sexual minorities, or offend them, based on the statements by the perpetrators that they indeed had no such intent, but merely expressed their opinions.
The Legal Team responded to the hate speech in the media in 2006 through three motions for disciplinary action before the Council of Honour of the Croatian Journalists' Association. In one case, the Council reprimanded the journalist severely, in the second, the motion was dismissed, and in the third, the ruling is pending.

3.3.3. REPORTS ON MEDIA COVERAGE AND ACTIONS TAKEN IN 2007
Period covered: January 1-May 31
The analysis includes all print media published in the Republic of Croatia. It is important to point out that although the effort was made, the analysis couldn't always include all the local papers. In the covered period, there was a total of 89 articles in almost all media that exemplify discrimination, intolerance and hate speech towards the LGBTIQ persons in a sensationalist manner. The positive news is that in comparison with the previous years, the journalists are mostly concentrating on reporting the discrimination or intolerance with some measure of critical distance. Otherwise, the main difference between the articles comes from the fact whether the journalist is reporting a statement by someone else that includes the elements of hate speech, or the journalist is using hate speech him- or herself. Hate speech by journalists themselves is usually evident in their editorials, or homophobic comments directed at particular social events. It is found within articles that are on average half a page long, although there are frequent cases in weekly magazines of hate speech being found within long articles of up to three pages long, with the actual hate speech directed towards the LGBTIQ persons contained within several lines only.
In 2007, three articles using hate speech were noted. Two were published within the "Book Café" column by Ljubidrag Jakić in the Makarska kronika, a regional paper of small import. The March 13, 2007, column is entitled: A Message to the Gay Association Representative for Makarska: Form a Club of Cured Homosexuals, and the May 29, 2007, column is entitled: Rabid, Loud Homosexuals Deny Our Right to Emotions. These columns call homosexual persons deviant and unnatural muckrackers.
The third article was published in the popular magazine Arena on April 17, 2007, under the title: Wrecked His Neighbour's Car and Hosted Drvena Maria in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Written by Una Jukić, the text suggested that it's a big misstep to host a declared lesbian in the Easter edition of the quiz show, and slanders the lesbian.
The Legal Team, co-ordinated with the Women's Network of Croatia, filed a motion to press charges before the Council of Honour of the Croatian Journalists' Association. The response hasn't been received yet.


4. RESULTS, OBSERVATIONS AND PLANS FOR FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION

This project documents the responses by the Legal Team in 2005, 2006 and the first five months of 2007. In that period, there were a total of 177 queries. Of those, 70 queries concerned the LGBTIQ issues. Those 70 queries can be separated into two groups: 42 queries about the legal status of the LGBTIQ persons, and 28 cases of abusing the rights of the LGBTIQ persons.
The most common rights abuses are insults, various forms of discrimination, threats, or physical assaults (bodily harm). All the cases have elements of hate crime, which is criminally punishable in Croatia by the Article 174 of the Penal Code – Racial and Other Discrimination. However, the law enforcement institutions of the Republic of Croatia do not sanction these acts as hate crime, but rather just as felonies (felonies against public peace and order, or violent behaviour).
The data documented in this project has been used to create a Report on the State of Human Rights of the LGBTIQ persons in 2006. Documented data on hate crime was also a useful tool for advocating the introduction of the definition of hate crimes into the Croatian legislation, leading to better legal protection for the victims of hate crimes. It also helped to advocate efforts on improving provisions from Croatian Penal Code (Article 174, Section 3) regarding hate speech. Information collected through this project is included in our annual report on state of human rights of sexual and gender minorities in Croatia for the year 2006.
Results of the research testify that the LGBT persons have begun to show more interest for their rights and for the actual use of these rights. In order to assist such attempts, the Team for Legal Changes of Iskorak and Kontra published the second edition of the Manual for Implementation of Anti-discriminatory Laws in Croatia. The Manual’s aim is to instruct the LGBT population on the current legislation in Croatia, the mechanisms of the protection of their rights, and to advise them of where to seek help. We firmly believe that a continuation of the activities focused on the empowerment and education of the LGBT population about their rights is crucial for the further improvement of the status of rights of sexual and gender minorities in Croatia.