| 
3 Official Monitoring of Hate Crimes
After having described the existing national legislation in both countries for prosecuting and convicting hate crime offenders as well as for ensuring the legal rights of victims, we will now turn to the official national monitoring and registration systems. As the European Network Against Racism has emphasized, »under-reporting and lack of data remain two of the critical impediments to the effectiveness of the law [addressing hate crimes].« (1) In general, it can be assumed that the extent of right-wing and related violence in Germany and Poland is, to varying degrees, underestimated.
Research in Canada and the United States, both leaders in this field, has recognized the following reasons for the high rate of underreporting by hate crime victims:
• fear of reprisal by perpetrators
• fear and mistrust of law enforcement employees
• belief that victimization will not be taken seriously or fear of further victimization by the police
• fear of secondary victimization by others (e.g. members of the gay community might fear that their sexual orientation will be revealed)
• failure to classify reported incidents as hate crimes because of insufficient evidence concerning perpetrator’s motivation failure to investigate the context of an incident. (2)
Some authors have claimed that the »dark figures« of hate crimes vary from offense to offense, but may run as high as 95 percent for certain crimes. (3) »Dark figures« refer to the number of crimes that go unreported.
Beyond underreporting, shortcomings exist concerning the quality of data collection and the registration and monitoring systems that governments and law enforcement agencies use. The reasons for these shortcomings are complex; however as a whole, they call attention to the fact that these institutions are still unprepared and/or unwilling to address the problem appropriately. Human Rights First and the European Network Against Racism (ENAR) have raised particular concern over the huge information deficit on hate crimes in Europe. Their main point of criticism is that there has not been sufficient emphasis placed on establishing official monitoring mechanisms and channels for public reporting on hate crimes and right-wing violence. They also observe a stark contrast between non-governmental registration and reporting, media coverage and reports available from governmental bodies; the government sources are often either unavailable, highly misleading or years out-of-date. (4) The ODIHR cautions that flawed official data on most affected victim groups limit the potential of governments and NGOs in developing policies that provide support and protection to vulnerable communities. (5)
In the following section, we will discuss the pertinence of these criticisms in the specific context of Germany and Poland after we evaluate relevant data sources from government institutions and their official figures for registered incidents and related legal proceedings. We will also summarize the discussions surrounding the official monitoring systems, including the main concerns expressed by legal experts, NGOs and activists.
1. European Network Against Racism (ENAR) 2007. Racism in Europe: ENAR Shadow Report, Brussels, p. 25.
2. Janhevich, Derek 2001. Hate Crimes in Canada: An Overview of Issues and Data Sources, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Ottawa; Shiveley, Michael 2005. Study of Literature and Legislation on Hate Crime in America, National Institute of Justice, Washington D.C.
3. Roberts, Julian V. 1995. Disproportionate Harm: Hate Crime in Canada: An Analysis of Recent Statistics, Executive Summary, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, p. 1.
4. McClintock, Michael 2004. Everyday Fears: A Survey of Violent Hate Crimes in Europe and North America: A Human Rights First Report, New York, p. 29.
5. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) 2007. Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region: Incidents and Challenges: Annual Report for 2006, Warsaw, p. 77.
(OPP)
