Latvia / Riga District Court / Case No. 11840000316
Country
Latvia
Year
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Incident(s) concerned/related
Related Bias motivation
Groups affected
Court/Body type
Court/Body
Key facts of the case
The defendant published a comment on the internet in response to an article about a Latvian woman who converted to Islam. The comment contained insults and aggressive language towards Muslim women living in Latvia. The defendant was accused of incitement to religious hatred under Section 78 (2) of the Criminal Law.
Main reasoning/argumentation
The defendant partially pleaded guilty. He acknowledged he had published the comment in a state of anger. He blamed the state for bringing Muslims to the country and for disseminating information about Muslims. The Court agreed with the [external] expert opinion that the comment is incitement to religious hatred against Muslims. The Court highlighted that the defendant was an adult who could or should have been aware that the comment is hostile towards Muslims.
Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?
Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case
According to the Section 78 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law, composition of criminal offence is formal. Thus, criminal liability is not bound with criminal consequences, but with commitment of adverse action.
Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case
The defendant was found guilty and punished with 140 hours of community service.
Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details
"Tiesa uzskata, ka ievietot pret islāma reliģijai piederīgajiem vērstu naidīgu komentāru, Apsūdzētājs, būdams pilngadīga persona, varēja un viņam vajadzēja apzināties, kā šādā veidā iespējams, tiks veicināts interneta vidē nereti sastopamais naids un neiecietības pret islamticīgajiem, apzinoties, ka ievietotājs komentārs ir pieejams neierobežotam interneta lietotāju lokam."
"The Court believes that the defendant as adult person in mental competency, when posting hostile comment towards persons belonging to Islam religion, could and should have been aware that this action, possibly, will incite hatred and intolerance towards Muslims that is quite widespread in Internet environment and understand that the posted comment is available to unlimited number of Internet users. "