Improving policing in a multicultural society in the Republic of Latvia: theoretical legal aspects

The Constitution (Satversme) of the Republic of Latvia states that “The State shall recognise and protect fundamental human rights in accordance with this Constitution, laws and international agreements binding upon Latvia” (Section 89). Equal value and equal rights of all citizens is a core value in a democratic society in the country. Therefore, an important feature of the law in Latvia is equality before the law and non-discrimination, which is regulated by Section 91 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. The Section 91 does not contain the prohibition criteria catalogue, and their determination is possible with the methods of interpretation.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, explaining the meaning of the criteria on the basis of which differentiation of persons would be inadmissible, has pointed out that “it was advised to include in the above criteria, for example, belonging to a certain race, nationality, sex, age, language, belonging to a certain political party, political belief, religious or world outlook, social and financial position or rank; moreover, this enumeration shall be created as the uncompleted range of forbidden criteria” (Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, 2005).

Explaining the content of Section 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia as a legal scholar, the President of the Republic of Latvia, Egils Levits, came to the conclusion that unequal treatment must be justified. If such a justification is not admissible or not sufficient, the principle of equality is violated (Levits, 2011).

The recognition that Latvia is a multicultural country has been integrated into the national legislation. The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia states that “Persons belonging to ethnic minorities have the right to preserve and develop their language and their ethnic and cultural identity” (Section 114). The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia has provided for all human rights, and this is reflected in laws and practices of the country. State administration shall comply with human rights in its activities (Section 10 (2) of the State Administration Structure Law, 2002). Operations of the police shall be organised by respecting human rights (Section 5 (1) of the law “On Police”, 1991).

Section 5 (2) of the law “On Police” states that “The police shall protect the rights and lawful interests of persons irrespective of their origin, sex, age, social and financial status, occupation, citizenship, race and nationality, attitude towards religion, political and other views as well as education and language, place of residence, and other circumstances”. The interpretation of Section 5(2) of the law “On Police” is only possible in relation to the beliefs of individuals. However, the catalogue of prohibited criteria for discrimination has now been expanded to include new criteria such as disability, sexual orientation and others. These criteria are not included in the list of Section 5 (2) of the law “On Police”, because, for example, a person's disability is not a “belief” of that person. Therefore, it would be necessary to ensure that the list of prohibited criteria for discrimination in Section 5(2) of the law “On Police” is open to interpretation so that the law enforcer may, if necessary, supplement this list with other criteria.

A similar regulation can be found in the internal regulations of the state police. Internal Regulation No. 3 of the State Police of 5 February 2020, “Code of Conduct of the State Police,” stipulates that an employee, which within the meaning of the regulations includes officers with special service ranks, employees under an employment contract and civil servants working for the state police, shall not, by his actions and statements, insult or discriminate against other employees and persons, with whom they communicate in the performance of their official duties, irrespective of race, nationality, sex, education, position, age, disability, sexual orientation, religious, political or other beliefs, property or marital status or other circumstances (Section 15).

The Code of Conduct of the State Police stipulates that police officers will observe a number of basic principles of professional ethics in their work. One of these principles is impartiality. The Code of Ethics of the State Police stipulates that an employee shall perform the duties of his/her office (post, job) impartially and fairly, with a high legal consciousness, respecting the equality of persons, and without showing special favour or creating unjustified privileges for any person. In making or reaching a decision, the employee shall take into account only verified and objective information based on documents and evidence obtained and shall act in accordance with laws and regulations and general principles of law (Section 11.3).

One of the most important basic principles of professional ethics of the state police is working in the public interest, which requires that the employee acts in the public interest, achieving the greatest possible benefit for the state and society; respects the equality of all members of society and the principle of justice, finding fair and proportionate solutions, and respects the rule of law and the principle of political neutrality (Section 11.4). The content of this provision refers to a number of other principles: equality (or equality before the law and the courts), justice, the rule of law and political neutrality. Referring to the American philosopher John Rawls, legal scholar Egils Levits pointed out that equality is a central component of justice and concluded that sometimes the distinction between the two principles is not made clearly enough, in some cases even used synonymously (Levits, 2011).

The principles listed are reflected in a number of normative acts that are important for the functioning of the state police, starting with the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and ending with the Law “On Police”. Section 5 (1) of the law “On Police” states that “Operations of the police shall be organised by respecting lawfulness, humanism, human rights, social justice, transparency and undivided authority, and also by relying on the assistance of the public”.

The Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia concluded that the rule of law and the principle of the rule of law derived therefrom stipulate that the actions of an institution must comply with the norms of law (and this means not only the written norms of law but also the general principles of law). Consequently, the principle of the rule of law implies the duty of the legal practitioner to understand the legal system (including the hierarchy of legal norms) and the legal principles and values of constitutional rank (including human rights) underlying the legal system and to apply legal norms by ascertaining their meaning and purpose in the context of this legal system (Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia, 2019). This interpretation is clearly binding on police officers as enforcers of the law and requires them to acquire all the necessary knowledge and skills to be able to apply and interpret the law.

The characteristics of policing are also set out in other internal laws and regulations. For example, Internal Regulation No. 18 of the State Police of 29 December 2020 “Organisation and control of the performance of official duties in the field of ensuring public order and security, monitoring traffic and monitoring road transport”, stipulates that the posting, which for the purposes of the regulation means one or more state police officers – persons holding a position in the state police who have been granted a special rank of service and who carry out preventive measures, prevent offences, ensure public order and security and monitor traffic and road transport, paying special attention to a number of objects listed in these regulations (Section 40). In the author's view, it would be useful to supplement these provisions with subparagraph 40.11, which also mentions minority assembly areas, cultural and religious sites, as well as associations ensuring the protection of minorities rights.

It would also be appropriate to amend the Internal Regulation of the State Police No. 29 of 22 November 2017 “Rules on the organisation of the performance of the duties of precinct inspectors” and Internal Regulation No. 11 of 8 June 2018 “Rules on the organisation of the duties of juvenile affairs officers”, including the relevant references. This is necessary because current internal regulations of the state police fail to satisfy up-to-date requirements and slow down policing in a multicultural society.

In general, it can be concluded that the regulatory framework governing the work of the state police in a multicultural society is sufficient, with minor reservations.

On 1 February 1995, the Council of Europe adopted a significant document for the protection of the rights of national minorities – the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Despite the fact that the convention included a number of important legal provisions, it unfortunately did not provide a definition of a national minority, and European Union countries were required to provide their own definitions of minorities when ratifying the convention.

Latvia was the only country that did not ratify the convention when it joined the European Union in 2004. The convention was ratified on 26 May 2005 by the Law “On the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”. The law defined the term “national minorities”, which, according to the law, are citizens of Latvia who differ from Latvians in terms of culture, religion or language, who have traditionally lived in Latvia for generations and consider themselves to belong to the Latvian state and society, who wish to preserve and develop their culture, religion or language (Section 2).

Representatives of Latvian Non-Governmental organizations (NGO)s consider this definition “unclear and controversial” (LCHR, 2008). For example, the Latvian Centre for Human Rights (LCHR) notes that “taking into consideration the large number of non-citizens and the slowing rate of naturalisation, this issue potentially has not just formal, but also practical importance” (LCHR, 2008). The inclusion of a citizenship requirement in the definition is discriminatory for Latvian non-citizens, as it provides for exceptions to the exercise of their rights.

The Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs (OCMA) states that non-citizens make up 9.26% of the total Latvian population, and their number as of 01.07.2022 was 191,036 (OCMA, 2022). At the same time, it should be noted that the Law on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities also provides that persons who are not citizens of Latvia or of another country, but who permanently and legally reside in the Republic of Latvia, do not belong to a national minority within the meaning of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, according to the definition of national minority provided by the Republic of Latvia, but who identify themselves with a national minority that meets this definition, may exercise the rights provided for in this Convention, unless the law provides exceptions (Section 2).

The reference in the definition to a long-standing link with the state also narrows the scope of subjects by distinguishing between pre-war citizens and their descendants and those who have acquired citizenship through naturalisation. As rightly noted by Latvian Centre for Human Rights (LCHR) staff, it is not clear what time period the expression “who have traditionally lived in Latvia for generations” implies in Latvian circumstances (LCHR, 2008).

Historically, Latvia has always been ethnically diverse and at various periods ethnic minorities have formed a varying but significant part of its population. According to The OCMA, in 01.07.2022, ethnic minorities formed about 40% of the country's population: Russians: 503,446 (24.41%); Ukrainians: 62,449 (3.03%); Byelorussians: 61,370 (2.98%); Pole: 40,389 (1.96%); Lithuanians: 23,907 (1.16%); others: 65,535 (3.18%); no specific nationality: 51,475 (2.5%). The main nationality of Latvia is, of course, Latvians – 1,241,613 (60.15%).

High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) “Recommendations on Policing in Multi-Ethnic Societies” in recruitment: “The composition of the police – at local, regional and national levels and including senior as well as junior ranks and also civilian personnel – should reflect the diversity of the population. The public image of the police as an ethnically representative body needs to be actively promoted”. (OSCE, 2006)

According to the author's observations, the state police is a reflection of Latvian society in this respect. Statistical information on the ethnic composition of the state police is not collected, but some research supports these findings (Treļs, 2011, 2015). That criterion should continue to be used.

Working in a multicultural society also brings several other social groups to the attention of the state police. For example, under Asylum Law, social groups such as “Asylum seeker”, “Refugee” and “Person who has been granted alternative status” can be defined.

Asylum seeker is a third-country national or a stateless person who in accordance with the procedures laid down in Asylum Law has expressed a wish to acquire refugee or alternative status at the border crossing point before entering the Republic of Latvia or when already in the territory of the Republic of Latvia, until the moment when administrative proceedings regarding his or her application regarding granting refugee or alternative status have ended.

The asylum seeker has the opportunity to request refugee status and, if he or she is recognised as a refugee, to acquire protection in accordance with the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees adopted on 28 July 1951. A third-country national who on the basis of justified fear from persecution due to his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a specific social group or his or her political views is located outside the country where he or she is a national and is unable or due to such fear does not wish to accept the protection of the country where he or she is a national, or a stateless person, who being outside his former country of permanent residence is unable or unwilling to return there due to the same reasons, may apply for refugee status (Section 37.1).

A third-country national or a stateless person to whom the refugee status cannot be granted may apply for alternative status if there is a reason to believe that he or she may be exposed to serious harm after return to the country of origin thereof and due to this reason is unable or does not wish to accept the protection of the above-mentioned country (Section 40.1). Within the meaning of Asylum Law, serious harm shall be: (1)

imposition of death penalty to an asylum seeker or the execution thereof;

Persons falling under the “Asylum seeker”, “Refugee” and “Person who has been granted alternative status” groups should not be confused with migrants and migrant workers. Migrants choose to move to a new place not because they face imminent persecution or death but to improve their standard of living – by finding work, reuniting with their families or for other reasons. Unlike refugees, who cannot return home safely, migrants and migrant workers face no obstacles in returning home.

From 1998 to 2021, 3014 asylum seekers have applied for international protection in the Republic of Latvia. A total of 225 persons were granted refugee status and 569 persons were granted alternative protection status. The war launched by the Russian Federation against Ukraine on 24 February 2022 made corrections in statistical information, and as of 15 August 2022, according to the Ministry of the Interior, 36,648 Ukrainian refugees were registered in the territory of the Republic of Latvia, and 31,257 refugees were issued residence documents with the right to employment (eng.lsm.lv). This has placed an additional burden on government resources. In addition, a large number of preventive activities, disclosure and investigation of hate crimes will create an additional burden on police officers.

Other social groups are also targeted by the police and need special protection and sometimes assistance from the police: religious groups, Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender LGBT+ people, homeless people and other vulnerable groups.

Good policing in multicultural societies is dependent on the establishment of a relationship of trust and confidence, built on regular communication and practical co-operation, between the police and the minorities.

HCNM “Recommendations on Policing in Multi-Ethnic Societies” says about the cooperation between the police and ethnic communities. In the twelfth article of recommendations, included in this unit, is said “Police should be tasked with developing methods and practices to communicate and cooperate with minorities and to build confidence together at local, regional and national levels” (OSCE, 2006).

Dr. Robin Oakley quite rightly points out that “Without the public's willingness to report crime and cooperate with the police, police-led intelligence gathering could not begin to identify and effectively respond to the bulk of “everyday” crime” (Oakley, 2005). This applies to minorities as well as to members of the majority nationality. Dr. Robin Oakley's conclusion applies to all sections of the criminal law.

As already mentioned, the ECRI Report on Latvia (fifth monitoring cycle) recommends “The authorities should establish a unit within the State Police tasked with reaching out to vulnerable groups in order to increase trust in the police and address the problem of under-reporting of racist and homo-/ transphobic hate crimes” (ECRI, 2019). The Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia (CM, 2019) informed ECRI that in order to reach out to vulnerable groups for the purpose of increasing trust in the police and tackling the problem of under-reporting of racist and homo-/transphobic hate crimes, the Ministry of Interior has opted for a different approach to the recommended establishment of a specialist unit within the state police, namely that of community policing. The authorities consider community policing as a legitimate alternative, as both approaches share the same objectives. Therefore, no specialised unit has been created yet within the state police. The LCHR offers an alternative solution or recommendation: “Appoint contact persons in the municipal police, state police and Security Police to reach out to vulnerable groups” (LCHR, 2020). ECRI does not agree that community policing constitutes an acceptable alternative to the creation of a specialised unit within the state police (ECRI, 2021). ECRI concludes therefore that this recommendation has not been implemented. Unfortunately, so far there have been no publicly announced plans to introduce such a unit. The non-governmental organisations support the conclusions of the ECRI reports.

The victims do not often report incidents to the police due to lack of trust in the willingness or ability of the law enforcement agencies to investigate these cases effectively. In addition, Romany nationals traditionally don't report to police about crimes; this fact undoubtedly makes it hard to find out the real capacity of present problem. The Roma community in Latvia is relatively small; the OCMA 2022 figures indicated 6684 persons (0.32%). Roma associations point out that many Roma nationals do not volunteer information about their ethnic origin to the authorities due to persistent stigmatisation and prejudice against Roma in the public sphere. Roma NGOs estimate that the number might easily be two or three times as high (ECRI, 2019). In the same way, 85% of LGBT+ people who were victims of hate-motivated physical or sexual attacks also did not report them to the police (FRA, 2020).

The data of the Information Centre of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Latvia (IC, 2023) show that from 25 September 2014, when the amendments to the criminal law were made, which improved regulations concerning hate crimes, the aim of which was to define individual's liability in case of causing social hate or discord, until 1 January 2022, Section 150 “Incitement of Social Hatred and Enmity” of the Criminal Law was applied in practice 27 times (in 2015: 1, in 2016: 5, in 2017: 2, in 2018: 0, in 2019: 2, in 2020: 11, in 2021: 6); in its turn, Section 78 “Triggering of National, Ethnic and Racial Hatred” of the Criminal Law was applied in practice 38 times (in 2015 – 10, in 2016 – 6, in 2017 – 1, in 2018 – 7, in 2019 – 5, in 2020 – 5, in 2021 – 4). The 2015 European migrant crisis (refugee crisis), COVID-19 pandemic and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine have all become a catalyst for an increase in hate crimes.

On 21 October 2022, the Latvian State Security Service (LSSS) reported that since the beginning of Russia's armed forces invasion in Ukraine, LSSS has initiated 27 criminal proceedings, while four proceedings had been taken over from the state police in relation to hate speech and activities in support of Russia's aggression and interests (LSSS, 2022). Criminal proceedings have been initiated on the basis of suspicion for various criminal offences: for activities directed towards triggering national hatred or enmity against Latvians and Ukrainians (Section 78 of Criminal Law), public glorifying and acquittal of Russia's war crimes (Section 74¹ of Criminal Law), activities aimed at triggering national hatred or enmity against Latvians and Ukrainians (Section 78 of Criminal Law), providing support in collecting financial resources and other goods for Russian soldiers involved in warfare in Ukraine (Section 77² of Criminal Law), action directed against Latvia (Section 80 of Criminal Law) and assistance to a foreign state in action directed against Latvia (Section 81¹ of Criminal Law). In eight of these criminal proceedings, the LSSS has concluded the pre-trial investigation and referred the materials of the criminal proceedings to the Prosecutor's Office to initiate criminal prosecution against the suspects. Within the other criminal proceedings, the pre-trial investigation continues; so far, 15 persons have been recognised as suspects, while seven others as persons against whom criminal proceedings have been enacted. This information allows the author to predict that issue of the hate crimes will not lose its relevance in the years to come.

In recent years, Latvian police positioned itself as the service organisation, dedicated on the delivery of services to the population (see, e.g., Cabinet of Ministers Order No. 248 of 06.04.2016 “On the Development Concept of the State Police”). Democratic service-oriented approaches to policing, and a community policing approach, require regular and effective communication between police and citizens. In any democratic state, police need to establish methods and practices to communicate with the public at all levels.

HCNM “Recommendations on Policing in Multi-Ethnic Societies” authors believe police in a multicultural society face an additional challenge. Communication and confidence building needs to reach out to a variety of minority groups, which may be diverse in terms of language, culture, religion and other circumstances and which may be dispersed or residentially concentrated. Police need to make sure that the methods and practices they use to communicate with the public take account of this diversity and past history and can reach out effectively to all different ethnic and national groups (OSCE, 2006). Police should play a proactive role in providing encouragement and support to minorities to assist them to communicate and co-operate with the police.

According to the recommendations by authors, “police need to receive training and other forms of professional support required to understand and respond appropriately to the sensitivities of minorities, and so that they are able to carry out their policing roles effectively in ways which promote harmony and reduce tensions” (OSCE, 2006).

State police work efficiency is affected by the establishment of trust between the police and minority representatives, which are maintained at an appropriate level, through regular contacts and practical cooperation (Treļs, 2014). In order to obtain cooperation from the minority communities, the police should develop appropriate methods and application practices. Failure to make such cooperation often results in a negative reaction from representatives of minorities and can even lead to conflicts. Conversely, if an agreement between the police and minority communities is established and a trusting relationship is maintained, this will enable police officers to be timely informed of possible minority rights violations as well as offences committed by minorities.