At a thematic session of the Croatian Parliament’s Committee on Human Rights and the Rights of National Minorities, held on 27 October 2026, representatives of institutions, ombudsperson offices, academia and civil society organisations discussed the rise of hate speech and hate crime in Croatia, the effectiveness of their prosecution, and the need for stronger prevention and protection of victims. Human Rights House Zagreb also took part in the discussion, warning of serious shortcomings in the institutional response, victims’ lack of trust in the system, and the absence of systematic public policies and political accountability.
Opening the session, Committee Chair Milorad Pupovac stressed that the aim of the discussion was not to deal solely with individual recent incidents, but to examine a long-standing social problem. He emphasised the importance of joint action by institutions and social actors in order to prevent the normalisation of intolerance and violence.
Ombudswoman Tena Šimonović Einwalter pointed to the need for a clearer understanding of, and distinction between, different forms of hate speech, including those subject to legal sanctions and those which, although not punishable, call for public condemnation and a societal response. Referring to Council of Europe standards, she highlighted the importance of consistent application of legislation, the accountability of public actors, education, protection of victims and inter-institutional cooperation. She stressed in particular that monitoring hate speech and hate crime must not be limited to the statistical recording of cases, but must contribute to a genuine improvement of the institutional response.
Minister of Justice, Public Administration and Digital Transformation Damir Habijan presented the existing legislative framework and victim protection mechanisms, with an emphasis on the individual assessment of victims’ needs in criminal proceedings. He highlighted the importance of an individualised approach to prevent secondary victimisation, intimidation and retaliation, and presented the existing forms of support for victims and witnesses.
Official statistics and victims’ experiences raise questions about the effectiveness of the system
Nino Habun, representative of the Ministry of the Interior, presented data showing that 79 criminal offences related to hate crime were recorded in the first nine months of 2026, compared with approximately 75 per year in previous years. The victim’s national origin was identified as the most common motive, and threats, physical violence and damage to property predominate among the recorded offences.
He also pointed to an increase in the criminal offence of public incitement to violence and hatred, particularly in the digital space, and to the difficulties in dealing with illegal content on global online platforms.
Alen Tahiri, Director of the Government Office for Human Rights and the Rights of National Minorities, presented activities aimed at training judicial and police officers, while representatives of academia and the education system stressed the importance of preventive action, developing critical thinking and systematically countering stereotypes and prejudice.
At the same time, presentations by ombudsperson institutions and civil society organisations pointed to serious limitations of official statistics. The number of recorded criminal offences does not necessarily reflect the actual prevalence of bias-motivated violence, especially when victims refrain from reporting because of distrust in institutions, fear or previous negative experiences.
Intolerance towards LGBTIQ people and shortcomings in the prosecution of violence
Kristijan Kevešević, Deputy Gender Equality Ombudsperson, warned of a worrying rise in intolerance, harassment and negative rhetoric towards LGBTIQ people, which the Ombudsperson’s office has been recording since 2022.
He particularly drew attention to the insufficient application of anti-discrimination legislation, inadequate action by the State Attorney’s Office and the sanctioning of discriminatory behaviour. He stressed that the absence of an effective response to harassment and hate speech can contribute to a social environment in which the risk of more serious forms of violence grows.
Kevešević also highlighted the need to adopt national action plans for LGBTIQ equality, in line with the European strategic framework.
Ivan Adam Šestan, Executive Coordinator of Zagreb Pride, presented the organisation’s experience in documenting discrimination and violence against LGBTIQ people. According to the data he presented, Zagreb Pride received 40 reports in 2025, while by the time of the session in 2026 it had already recorded 50.
He pointed to discrepancies between data collected by civil society organisations and official records, and to cases in which bias-motivated violence is not recognised or is classified as a less serious form of unlawful conduct.
He referred in particular to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Sabalić v. Croatia, concerning the failure of Croatian institutions to respond effectively to homophobically motivated violence. He recalled that, within the procedure for supervising the execution of the judgment, Zagreb Pride and Human Rights House Zagreb submitted a joint communication to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, highlighting the problems that persist in institutional practice.
Human Rights House: the normative framework is not enough without real implementation
Ivan Novosel, Executive Director of Human Rights House Zagreb, warned that the existing system for identifying, investigating and prosecuting hate speech and hate crime does not achieve the necessary level of effectiveness.
Referring to Sabalić v. Croatia, he stressed that failures to investigate and prosecute the homophobic motive of violence raise broader questions about the effectiveness of criminal-law protection for victims of hate crime.
He particularly highlighted the problem of under-reporting of violence, linking it to the distrust of members of marginalised communities towards institutions. Victims often turn to civil society organisations or members of their own communities rather than to the police and other competent authorities.
Novosel also pointed to the lack of systematic training and coordinated action by institutions. Although there are positive examples of cooperation, training for police officers, state attorneys and other professionals often depends on civil society initiatives and EU project funding, instead of being permanently integrated into the institutional system.
He stressed the importance of direct contact between professionals and the communities exposed to hate crime. Understanding the experiences of LGBTIQ people, migrant workers and other marginalised groups is key to recognising bias, building trust and improving the treatment of victims.
Speaking about hate speech in the digital space, he warned that the challenges of regulating global platforms must not overshadow the question of the responsibility of domestic online media and the more effective application of existing legislation to illegal user comments.
He was particularly critical of shortcomings in the implementation of national policies on human rights and combating discrimination, delays in operational measures, and the insufficiently active work of the Working Group for the Statistical Monitoring of Hate Crimes.
In conclusion, he called for stronger institutional and political leadership in this area, stressing that combating hate speech and hate crime cannot remain a purely technical matter for individual bodies, but requires coordinated action and accountability on the part of the executive.
Racism towards migrant communities cannot be viewed as a series of isolated incidents
Lucija Mulalić of the Centre for Peace Studies warned that hate speech and hate crime against migrant communities should be viewed in the broader context of social and institutional racism.
Drawing on the experiences of migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers and other migrant groups, she stressed that many members of these communities do not perceive institutions as places where they can obtain protection. She pointed to experiences of discriminatory and degrading treatment in contact with institutions, including police checks and residence regularisation procedures.
She referred in particular to violence against migrant delivery workers, stressing the need to recognise the racial and class dimensions of such attacks. She noted that foreign nationals accounted for 18 per cent of victims of the criminal offence of robbery in the previous year, while only four cases were classified as hate crimes.
Mulalić warned that racism cannot be effectively countered without considering broader social circumstances, including precarious working conditions, inequalities, the housing crisis and discrimination in access to rights.
She stressed that integration policies which expect migrant communities to adapt, while failing to counter institutional and social racism, cannot ensure real equality and social inclusion.
She called on institutions to create safe spaces in which migrant communities can speak about experiences of discrimination and violence without fear, and to systematically recognise and sanction racism.
Threats against journalists endanger media freedom and public debate
Melisa Skender, Secretary General of the Croatian Journalists’ Association (HND), warned of threats, intimidation and attacks against journalists, especially those reporting on nationalism, attitudes towards the Serb national minority, war crimes, the Ustaša legacy and historical revisionism.
According to the data she presented, HND had recorded 26 attacks on and threats against journalists in 2026 up to the time of the session, while eight physical attacks were recorded in the previous two years.
She warned in particular of the nationalist and ethnic stigmatisation of journalists, their labelling as enemies of the state, and the danger that hostile rhetoric could escalate into direct threats to their safety.
Skender also highlighted the responsibility of political office-holders, whose public discrediting of journalists can further fuel hostility and pressure. Such an environment, she warned, can lead to self-censorship and restrict public debate on matters of public interest.
Protection of national minorities and the responsibility of public actors
Saša Milošević of the Serb National Council warned of a rise in ethnically motivated violence against members of the Serb community, threats, vandalism of property, and incidents related to cultural events and the public expression of national identity.
According to the data he presented, the Serb National Council (SNV) recorded twice as many cases of ethnically motivated violence in 2025 as in the previous year, as well as 51 cases of vandalism of property, mostly Second World War memorial heritage.
He was critical of the inadequate action of the competent institutions, the length of court proceedings and lenient sanctions, and warned of the normalisation of hate speech in the public sphere.
In the final part of the session, Members of Parliament further raised questions of political accountability, consistent condemnation of violence and discrimination, legal certainty, and the need for systematic civic education.
From legal mechanisms to real protection of human rights
The discussion showed that Croatia has legislative and institutional mechanisms for combating hate speech and hate crime, but that their existence alone does not guarantee effective protection.
Presentations by ombudsperson institutions and civil society organisations in particular raised questions of timely recognition of bias motives, appropriate legal qualification and prosecution of violence, protection of victims from secondary victimisation, accessibility of reporting mechanisms, and building trust in institutions.
At the same time, the need was stressed for systematic prevention, education, responsible public and political conduct, and continuous support for civil society organisations working with communities exposed to discrimination and violence.
Human Rights House Zagreb believes that more effective action against hate speech and hate crime requires moving from the formal fulfilment of legislative and strategic obligations to their consistent and measurable implementation. This entails proper investigation and prosecution of hate motives, systematic support for victims, continuous training of the competent authorities, and stronger political accountability for the implementation of public policies.
The case of Sabalić v. Croatia, which representatives of Zagreb Pride and Human Rights House Zagreb referred to during the session, underlines in particular the importance of an effective institutional response to bias-motivated violence and the need to monitor the actual effects of measures taken to execute judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
The full recording of the session is available on the Croatian Parliament’s YouTube channel.
