| 
1.2 Concerns Raised by International Organizations
Right-wing and xenophobic attacks are not a merely national matter, given that they violate the basic civil and human rights of individuals and sometimes of whole communities. There are a number of supranational bodies and international networks of NGOs that monitor hate crimes and related public policies in European countries. These policies are mainly based on international human rights conventions, guidelines and standards set by the Council of Europe and the European Union that provide a framework for protecting all people, including non-EU citizens, against discrimination. In addition to these standards, declarations and resolutions also require that EU member states actively engage in the fight against violence motivated by bias and intolerance. The most important hate crime policies adopted by Poland and Germany are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (1)
The Council of Europe was the first supranational body to monitor how its member states responded to the increase in hate crimes. In 1993 it created the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), which stated in its general policy recommendation that its member states should »ensure that accurate data and statistics are collected and published on the number of racist and xenophobic offences that are reported to the police, on the number of cases that are prosecuted, on the reasons for not prosecuting and on the outcome of cases prosecuted.« (2) The ECRI’s main tasks are:
• to review the member’s states legislation, policies and other measures to combat racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance
• to propose further action at the local, national and European levels to formulate general policy recommendations to member states.
Since 1994 the ECRI has completed three rounds of country reports based on both governmental and non-governmental sources (the first from 1994-1998, the second from 1999-2002 and the third from 2003-2007).
The European Union followed the Council of Europe’s example in 2002, when it installed the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). (3)
In 2007 the EUMC was replaced by the Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). Its primary objective is to collect reliable and comparable data about racism and xenophobia in the European Union, which is provided by the European Information Network on Racism and Xenophobia (RAXEN) and its National Focal Points. (4) The German RAXEN reports are compiled annually at the European Forum for Migration Studies (efms), which has been the National Focal Point for Germany since 2001 at the University of Bamberg. In Poland the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, based in Warsaw, carries out the function of the National Focal Point, and it has compiled the RAXEN reports since the fall of 2003.
In 2003 the Maastricht Ministerial Council’s Decision on Tolerance and Non-Discrimination also strengthened the OSCE’s role in combating racism and intolerance. The Council commissioned the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), its human rights body, to serve as a collection point for information and statistics gathered by participating states on hate crimes. This encompasses violent manifestations of racism, xenophobia, discrimination and anti-Semitism. (5) Besides offering practical support such as law enforcement training and legislative assistance, one of ODHIR’s most important contributions has been its ability to advance the debate on the concept of hate crimes. It is the only international body mentioned so far to offer a common working definition on hate crimes »that can be used across the OSCE region to reflect the diversity of victims targeted.« (6)
All of the afore-mentioned watchdog institutions have a limited role in the enforcement of hate crime policy standards; therefore, it is difficult to assess how much attention national governments have paid to their recommendations. Nevertheless, like other areas of policy-making, it can be assumed that they are able to put member states and their authorities under some public scrutiny if state representatives make no effort to respond to standards established by international conventions and politically binding agreements. Especially in the case of Poland, monitoring activities by supranational bodies have also provided associations representing minority communities and other NGOs committed to the fight against discrimination with a platform to discuss their views with a broader audience, thus strengthening their position in consultation processes and their lobbying efforts for a broader recognition of their concerns.
1. See: Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) 2004. International Action Against Racism, Xenophobia, Anti-Semitism and Intolerance in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study, Warsaw; Addy, David Nii 2005. Rassistische Diskriminierung: Internationale Verpflichtungen und nationale Herausforderungen für die Menschenrechtsarbeit in Deutschland, Berlin.
2. European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) 1996. ECRI General Policy Recommendation Nr. 1 on Combating Racism, Xenophobia, Anti-Semitism, and Intolerance, Strasbourg, p. 5.
3. European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUCM) 2002. Racism and Xenophobia in the EU Member States: Trends, Developments and Good Practice in 2002: Annual Report, Vienna, p. 89.
4. According to the FRA, the primary objectives of the National Focus Points are »to set up a national information network, which includes cooperation with the main actors in the field of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, being either governmental institutions, NGOs, research bodies, specialised bodies or social partners,» and to »coordinate and structure the national data collection and transmit the information to the FRA according to specific guidelines.» European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2007. Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU, Vienna, p. 4.
5. OSCE 2005. OSCE Human Dimension Commitments, Vol. 1, Warsaw.
6. See the introduction of this report (p. 9).
(OPP)
