Hanovs v. Latvia: nIneffective Investigation Into a Hate-Motivated Attack on the Applicant (Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention)

11 0

The Court concludes that the respondent State failed in its obligation under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 14, to provide adequate protection for the applicant’s dignity and private life by ensuring the effective prosecution of the attack against him, while taking into account the hate motive behind the attack.

The Court emphasises the crucial importance for Contracting States to address impunity in cases of hate crimes, as they pose a significant threat to the fundamental rights protected by the Convention.

Failure to address such incidents can normalise hostility towards LGBTI individuals, perpetuate a culture of intolerance and discrimination and encourage further acts of a similar nature.

Happy

1 20 %

Sad

1 20 %

Excited

1 20 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

2 40 %