The Decade of Violence: A Comprehensive Analysis of Hate Crimes Against LGBTQ in Russia in the Era of the “Gay Propaganda Law” (2010–2020)

ABSTRACT

The research builds on the previous findings on the number of hate crimes against LGBTQ in Russia before and after the introduction of the so-called “gay propaganda law” in 2013 and significantly enriches them. The previous research studied hate crimes between 2010 and 2016 and was limited to using 2 databases of court decisions. The current research expands both the timeframe and the use of sources: it analyzes such crimes across 11 years (2010–2020) while adding 2 new databases of court rulings to achieve more comprehensive results and generate more accurate statistics of violent acts against LGBTQ in Russia. The previous research identified 263 cases of hate crimes, which was not sufficient to generate accurate statistics and indicated a trend only. The results of the current research significantly expand the existing knowledge by identifying 1056 hate crimes committed against 853 individuals including 365 fatalities. The greater number of cases enabled the current research to present a more thorough descriptive analysis of the crimes committed against LGBTQ in Russia. The paper introduces 3 main categories of hate crimes (Premeditated attacks, Not premeditated attacks, and the so-called “Gay panic defense” cases) and establishes that the number of cases when LGBTQ victim was purposefully selected and targeted grew substantially across the decade. The overall number of victims increased by three times after the introduction of the “gay propaganda law” in 2013 – from 34 in 2010 to 138 in 2015 and remained at relatively the same level for the remaining of the decade.

KEYWORDS:

• Hate crimes
• LGBTQ rights
• discrimination
• violence

Introduction

The level of hate crimes against LGBTQ is on the rise in Russia. This issue is closely connected with the introduction of the so-called “gay propaganda law” in 2013 (Federal Law No. 135-FZ “On amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation in order to protect children from information, promoting the denial of traditional family values”). This legal act introduced fines for “promoting non-traditional sexual relationships,” ranging from 5000 to 50,000 RUB for individuals (100 to 1000 EUR in 2013) and 1,000,000 RUB for organizations (20,000 EUR in 2013). The definition of “promotion” adopted by the law is vague, leading to its interpretation by the Russian law enforcement and judiciary being very broad. The law has raised questions among legal experts regarding its foreseeability and potential arbitrary enforcement (Fenwick, 2019; Johnson, 2015). Some examples of cases to which the law was applied include fines for actions such as waving a rainbow flag (“My freedom defends yours” 2014); public discussion of homosexuality (The Economist, n.d.); screening of gay-themed movies (Znak.com, n.d); and providing psychological help to homosexual individuals through support groups (Luhn, 2015). This legal act has a presumably focused nature – it is specifically aimed at protecting the rights of the child. However, it can be seen from the case law that the implementation is not that specific. The case law is so diverse that the only pattern that can be observed is the restriction of positive or neutral expressions pertaining to LGBTQ (negative expressions are not restricted). Therefore, “gay propaganda law” represents a blanket ban, a symbolic message to the LGBTQ community. This can be illustrated by the words of Valery Zorkin, Chairman of the Russian Constitutional Court: “The legal meaning of this ban is not so much to solve the problem of promoting homosexuality among minors – frankly, this problem is not yet acute in Russia – but to outline an understanding of the deviating nature of this type of behavior” (Zorkin predlozhil izmenit osnovopologayushiye documenty OON, 2014). Therefore, the question arises regarding the potential consequences of the adoption of legislation that is designed in such a way.

The dangerous discriminatory nature of the law in question has been outlined by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the Court). In 2017, in Bayev and Others v Russia, the Court found that the “gay propaganda law” is in violation of Articles 10 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) as it infringed on both freedom of expression and the prohibition on discrimination (Bayev et al. v. Russia, 2017). The Court further elaborated that there will be potential negative outcomes of such laws: “By adopting such laws the authorities reinforce stigma and prejudice and encourage homophobia which is incompatible with the notions of equality, pluralism, and tolerance inherent in a democratic society” (§ 83). Despite the decision of the ECtHR, the law was never repealed and was actively implemented. Moreover, in 2022, after Russia progressed into a more developed state of authoritarianism, new legislation was proposed introducing new restrictions, related to “gay propaganda” and equalized homosexuality and pedophilia (Prinyaty zakonoproekty o zashite traditsionnykh tsennostey, 2022). Thus, the situation around institutionalized discrimination against LGBTQ in Russia continues to deteriorate.

The connection between discrimination (by way of imposing a discriminatory legal act) and the level of violence against the marginalized group(s) was discussed in literature (Allport, 1954; Glick, 2005; Herek, 2007; Kondakov, 2019; Mason, 2001; ODIHR, 2009; Perry, 2001). The previous research (Kondakov, 2019) developed a method of statistics collection on anti-LGBTQ hate crimes in Russia, generating unique data that is not being reported by the Russian authorities. The research however was restricted in the use of sources and the timeframe which produced limited results. The current research is employing the original methodology with more extensive use of databases and an expanded timeframe that covers 11 years in order to generate more accurate statistics to answer the question regarding the level of violence against LGBTQ in Russia. The result is an extensive database of homophobic violence and hate crime incidents in Russia. Since the number of cases identified in the current research is greater it allows an additional analysis of the types of crimes, based on different criteria. Therefore, there are two main research questions for the current paper: what is the level of hate crimes against LGBTQ in Russia before and after the introduction of the “gay propaganda law” (2010–2020), and what are the types of the crimes committed?

In order to elaborate on that, the paper will cover the following. First, I will situate the research in the context of homophobic violence in Russia. Second, I will introduce theoretical concepts of hate crimes in connection with discrimination and the legal framework for hate crimes in Russia. In doing so, I operationalize the definition of a hate crime that will be used in this research. Third, I will elaborate on the methodology of the current research and how it builds on the previous research. Finally, I will present the results of my analysis and the statistics on hate crimes against LGBTQ in Russia.

The context of homophobic violence in Russia

The choice of the decade 2010–2020 is not accidental, coincident with a rise of repressive legal mechanisms in Russia that aimed to restrict freedom of expression. Such laws apply to a variety of different actions related to the public expression of opinions and are predominantly justified by the need to preserve public security and morals. Throughout the third and the fourth presidential terms of Vladimir Putin (2012 – currently), the implementation of such legal acts increased. This was taking place in concert with a turn to “traditional values” (Wilkinson, 2014), the rhetoric of nationalism, and the formation of the authoritarian regime. In 2010 Russia was classified as a “Hybrid regime” and placed in 107th place in the world’s democracy index, while in 2021, it was put in the “Authoritarian” category in 124th place (“Democracy Index 2021,” n.d.). The introduction and active implementation of repressive legal mechanisms are in line with the process of autocratization and together with the rhetoric of nationalism, it brings about negative consequences, one of which is violence against particular groups.

The “gay propaganda law” is one of the restrictive legal acts that are the product of the decade of autocratization. It has a distinguishing feature – unlike other legal mechanisms that restrict freedom of expression, “gay propaganda law” is designed in a discriminatory manner. The ECtHR’s Bayev case is the only case where the Court has found a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination in the exercise of Convention rights). The Court observed that “the legislation at hand stated the inferiority of same-sex relationships compared with opposite-sex relationships < … > [and] embodied a predisposed bias on the part of the heterosexual majority against the homosexual minority” while the Government did not offer “convincing and weighty reasons justifying the difference in treatment” (Bayev et al. v. Russia, 2017, para. 90). Despite the decision, the law in question is still being actively enforced – in 2013–2021 there have been 117 cases of implementing the “gay propaganda law,” 36 of them resulted in convictions (Danniye Sudebnoi Statistiki, no date). This provides an opportunity for the research to explore the potential negative outcomes that the law in question brings to the marginalized group.

Where can the potential negative effect mentioned by the ECtHR be observed? The introduction of the discriminatory legislation and the discourse surrounding it potentially affected public opinion on LGBTQ. After 2013 the attitudes toward homosexual people became significantly more negative. In 2021 Levada Center published a report on “The attitude of Russians to the LGBT Community.” The most common attitude among the population is “disgust or fear” (38% in 2021 compared to 21% before 2013), at the same time the proportion of people who are indifferent almost halved (26% in 2015 compared to 45% before 2013). The majority of people deny the right to enter same-sex relationships (68% in 2021). This is a representation of a hostile environment that is partially created by the introduction of the “gay propaganda law” (“The attitude of Russians to the LGBT community,” no date).

What is the evidence that discriminatory legislation increases the level of violence against marginalized groups? Past research on the number of hate crimes against LGBTQ in Russia is very limited. Official sources do not report such crimes. There are 4 main sources of data: an international organization (OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights – ODIHR), 2 Russian NGOs (LGBT Initiative Group Stimul, SOVA Center), and an academic research project (Kondakov, 2019). Each of them provides data on hate crimes against LGBTQ which is helpful in understanding the context but not enough to provide sufficient statistics of such crimes and thorough analysis. This research gap will be bridged by the current paper.

ODIHR provides a database on hate crimes in the member states, releasing this data every year on the 16th of November – International Tolerance Day. The data is provided by the Russian civil society organizations that are involved in monitoring violence and statistical analysis. There are 7 organizations in total that contributed to those reports by submitting their data to ODIHR separately.¹ The incidents that are included in the reports are further divided into 3 categories: “violent attacks against people,” “attacks against property” and “threats.” The database contains a brief outline of the incident (e.g., A gay man was subjected to homophobic insults, threatened, beaten and electrocuted by police officers) and the name of the NGO that reported the incident to ODIHR. At the moment (Aug 2022) reports are available for 5 years (2016–2020), which is not enough to trace the influence of the “gay propaganda law” which was adopted in 2013. Moreover, the data does not seem to be consistent (attacks against property were only reported in 2016 and one more incident in 2020, threats were not reported in 2016; Figure 1; Russian Federation | HCRW, no date).

Figure 1. Number of hate crimes according to 3 different reporting bodies.

As for the sources within the country, there are 2 NGOs that regularly publish such data. LGBT Initiative Group Stimul published reports on homophobic violence and discrimination. This NGO employed 4 types of sources – their own records, messages from government agencies, news media articles, and social media posts. The incidents they reported include violent attacks (including targeting and dating violence) and threats. The data is published in their yearly reports and is somewhat reliable – descriptions of sources are included in the reports. Currently, only 4 reports are available (2017–2020; Figure 1), which is not enough to make conclusions about the influence of discrimination on the level of violence.

Another NGO – SOVA Center has been one of the most consistent and reliable sources of information on hate crimes in Russia. Instead of publishing yearly reports, they maintain an open-access database of hate crimes. The database includes anti-LGBT crimes for the longest period of time (2007–2021; Figure 1). The data is not categorized, every incident is accompanied by a short description and a link to the source (usually a media piece). This data does suggest a considerable increase in the number of crimes from 2013 onwards, which can be attributed to the influence of the “gay propaganda law” (SOVA Center for Information and Analysis, no date). However, the data is not systematic and potentially biased. The method that was employed by SOVA Center included monitoring media sources. Therefore, only hate crimes that received media attention were spotted by this NGO and included in their statistics. The method employed by the current research mitigates this constraint by accessing criminal cases that were unseen by the media.

The three sources that I mentioned above are useful in order to gather insights regarding the level of violence against the LGBTQ. However, they do not make connections between the number of hate crimes and discrimination against the group. There has been an academic attempt to gather statistics on hate crimes – Kondakov (2019) studied hate crimes against LGBTQ in Russia over the course of six years (2011–2016; Figure 2). Unlike the NGOs, this piece of research is not concerned about the media sources or a combination of different sources – it is focused on court rulings only. This work attempts to analyze all available court decisions related to LGBTQ and identify those that can qualify as hate crimes. In this case, the statistical data will not be limited to only the cases that appear in the media.

Figure 2. Number of hate crimes against LGBT (Kondakov, 2019).

This data represents a general trend rather than the most reliable numbers on hate crimes due to a very conservative approach chosen by the researcher. However, there is an issue with the 2 databases used in this research – Pravosudie and RosPravosudie. The former does not include court decisions from the most populous region of Russia – the city of Moscow (which significantly undermines the results of the research), the latter was discontinued and is not available after 2018. The current research mitigates this problem by adding 2 private databases. The original research indicated a trend only due to a limited number of cases and did not allow categorization – the only one that is provided is based on the type of the criminal offense as it is stated in court judgments (Larceny, Violence, or Homicide). The current research with the extended timeframe and use of databases managed to identify more cases of hate crimes, which allowed a more thorough descriptive analysis of the crimes.

As can be seen, the existing sources of data on hate crimes against LGBTQ in Russia are limited. The reports provided by the ODIHR and LGBT Initiative Group Stimul do not cover the timeframe before the introduction of the “gay propaganda law.” The data in the open-access database of SOVA Center is not systematic and includes only the incidents reported by the media. The previous research project (Kondakov, 2019) does provide reliable data but is limited in the use of sources and in its timeframe, which did not allow it to produce a detailed analysis and generate enough cases of hate crimes. The current research significantly enhances the existing knowledge by employing the reliable method of data collection to generate more accurate statistics.

Hate crime as a continuation of the process of marginalization of the out-group

For the purpose of the current research, the concept of hate crime available in legal literature needs to be reviewed and a definition needs to be operationalized. In the following two sections, I will discuss the concepts of hate crime, and potential connection to discrimination, and how they were developed by different authors. I will illustrate how the concepts progressed into documents of international organizations and national legislation. Finally, I will operationalize the definition of hate crimes that will be used for the purposes of the current research.

The connection between discrimination (by way of imposing discriminatory legislation) and violence is more apparent if they are considered to be parts of the same progression. This stream in the literature begins in the post-WWII discourse in social psychology that was focused on explaining the nature of prejudice and its connection with discrimination and violence. Allport scale of the manifestation of prejudice in society (1954) shows how verbal rejection (hate speech, negative images of out-group), progresses into discrimination (excluding members of the group from certain types of social privileges, disadvantaging the out-group by preventing them from achieving goals), and finally to physical attack and extermination. It is also suggested that on this scale, discrimination (by way of imposing a discriminatory legal act) is a decisive step in the transition between verbal rejection and violence, a condition that is required to “remove the normal brakes that exist between verbal aggression and violence < … > while many people would never go all the way from antilocution to violence, it is true that activity on one level makes the transition to a more intense level easier” (Allport, 1954, p. 58).

One example of this progression is the connection between the political discourse of anti-Semitism that enabled the discriminatory Nuremberg Laws which “made the subsequent violence and burning of synagogues seem natural” (Allport, 1954, p. 57). A similar progression has been observed in Russia with the events surrounding the “gay propaganda law.” First, the verbal rejection of the LGBTQ was described by Healey (2017) and Eremin and Petrovich-Belkin (2022) who analyzed the formation of the negative public discourse on LGBTQ in Russia in the early 2000s and an increasing number of legal initiatives concerning the “protection of morals” between 2004 and 2010 as well as Sleptcov (2018) who described the discourse of political homophobia as a state strategy in Russia. Second, discrimination through legal means began with a number of regional laws that preceded and made it easier to enact the federal/national “gay propaganda law” (Johnson, 2011). The rise of violence followed immediately after, it was recorded in the following year (Kondakov, 2019, p. 952). Finally, the increase in the level of violence led to consequences such as the infamous “gay purges” in Chechnya in 2017 – systematic authorized persecution of LGBTQ in the region that resulted in around 100 people being detained on suspicion of being gay and at least 3 dying (Novaya Gazeta, 2017). Another wave of “gay purges” happened in late 2018 when 40 people were detained and 2 killed (Russian LGBT Network, 2019). Therefore, the idea of a progression from verbal rejection to discrimination to violence that is elaborated in literature is very relevant for the current research.

The Allportian idea of a progression of prejudice is shared and expanded upon by more contemporary authors. Staub (1996), Perry (2001), Mason (2001), and Herek (2009) consider hate crimes to be not isolated events but systematic symbolic acts of bias-motivated violence, which grow naturally as extensions of racism, sexism, and homophobia. Herek (2009) explains this line of argument as follows: “anti-gay violence is logical, albeit extreme extension of heterosexism – an ideological system that denies, denigrates and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship or community.” This is closely connected with the distribution of power – to ensure that sexual minorities have less power, the heterosexual assumption is promoted and homosexual behavior is labeled as abnormal, unnatural, nontraditional, and deviant. This status serves to make “legitimate hostility, discrimination, and even aggression against sexual minorities” and becomes a foundation for individual manifestations (which can be for example, behaviors expressing stigma, including violent acts; Herek, 2009, p. 67). Perry elaborates that this progression is made possible by constructing the relative identities of both offender and victim “by simultaneously asserting one and subordinating, if not annihilating another” (Perry, 2001, p. 44). This process is connected to the “mythical norm” on how groups or individuals should perform their identities. If they are performing in accordance with this, they “uphold the boundaries that separate them from the Other” (Perry, 2001, p. 51) (from the out-group in the Allportian sense), and ultimately the social relations of power. At the same time, in the case of the opposite, when they fail to perform their identity in normative ways, they are held to be doing difference inappropriately. “Members of subordinate groups are potential victims because of their subordinate status, they already are deemed inferior and therefore deserving of whatever hostility and persecution come their way” (Perry, 2001, p. 56). Staub (1996) adds to this that “systematic devaluation and dehumanization of members of another group < … > leading to open, and often mass violence against the group.” Therefore, contemporary authors agree that violence is the ultimate result of discrimination – it reaffirms the appropriate order, it emerges to punish those who do a difference inappropriately, which is a more nuanced meaning of the Allport scale of the progression of prejudice.

Hate crimes: operationalized definition and legal framework

The discourse around hate crimes in literature contributed to the developments in legislation. The idea of the progression from discrimination into violence described earlier, was adopted by ODIHR. In their “Practical Guide to Hate Crime Laws,” ODIHR mentioned 2 factors that can cause hate crimes to increase: (1) social acceptance of discrimination against particular groups and (2) marginalized status of the communities who are disproportionately victims of hate crimes. Those 2 factors can also increase the harm caused by hate crimes when a community has historically been a victim of discrimination – other members of the targeted group can feel at risk of a future attack (ODIHR, 2009, p. 20). In this argument, ODIHR aligns with Perry’s (2001) view that mentioned the “symbolic nature” of hate crimes means those acts are aimed at damaging not the immediate victim only but also at reaching the community to create fear, hostility, and suspicion.

This community effect is especially highlighted by some authors who include the societal effects of hate crimes in its definition. For example, Wolfe and Copeland (1994) defined a hate crime as the “violence directed towards groups of people who generally are not valued by the majority, who suffer discrimination in other arenas, and who do not have full access to remedy social, political and economic injustice.” Similarly, in the original research Kondakov (2019) mentioned “underprivileged sexuality” in the proposed operationalized definition of hate crime as “a violation of the Criminal Code that reveals the relationship between perpetrators’ actions and their biases towards the selected victims’ real or perceived underprivileged sexuality or gender expression” (Kondakov, 2019, p. 945). Perry’s definition in that sense is more neutral as it did not directly include such an assumption, stating that hate crime involves “acts of violence and intimidation, usually directed toward stigmatized and marginalized groups” (Perry, 2001, p. 11). The concepts developed in literature influenced ODIHR’s understanding of hate crimes. The organization’s definition is as follows – “hate crimes are criminal acts committed with a bias motive.” This functional characteristic allows it to be broken down into two essential elements. First, a “base offense” (an act that is qualified as a criminal offense in a jurisdiction) – this is similar to Kondakov (2019), who in his definition mentions a “violation of the Criminal Code.” Second, “bias motive” (an intentional choice of the target because of some protected characteristics that are shared by a group; ODIHR, 2009, p. 16). As one can observe in the four definitions of hate crime above there is no mention of the word “hate” (Kondakov does use the word “bias”). A bias motive toward the victim can be manifested in a variety of different acts. Not in all cases does the perpetrator feel “hate” toward the victim, the crimes can be committed out of resentment, a desire for peer approval, or vulnerability of the “easy target.” Despite the absence of the feeling of hatred, these acts can qualify as hate crimes as long as they contain two elements discussed before (a base offense and a bias motive).

Therefore, there are three advantages of the definition provided by ODIHR that will be useful for the purposes of this research. First, it encapsulates concepts developed in the literature (including the progression from discrimination to violence). Second, it has two well-defined objective elements, which allow the research to employ it and apply it to the databases of court rulings. Finally, it is very similar to the definition used in the original research by Kondakov (mentioned above) which helps to achieve homogeneity of results.

The idea of applying the definition of hate crime to identify relevant cases and generate statistics is further highlighted by the fact that the hate crime legislation in Russia is inefficient. The legal framework of hate crimes includes penalty enhancements (sometimes referred to as “aggravating circumstances provisions” – clauses that increase the penalty for a base offense when it is committed with a bias motive). Penalty enhancements are incorporated in the Russian Criminal Code and include the list of protected characteristics and markers of group identity. The list is not exhaustive as it states “motivated by hatred or enmity towards any social group.” The Constitutional Court (Resolution 24-П dated 23.09.14) confirmed that “a social group can also be understood as groups of persons with a certain sexual orientation.” This enables courts to apply penalty enhancements in cases of hate crimes against LGBTQ. However, the perpetrators who targeted LGBTQ people are seldom prosecuted under the hate crimes legislation. Kondakov (2019) found that specific penalty enhancements were implemented 5 times in the period of 2011–2016 (Kondakov, 2019, p. 943). The current research expanded this timeframe and added additional sources but was able to find only 1 more case, making it 6 cases of officially recognized aggravated crimes for the period of 2010–2020. Moreover, all 6 cases were from before 2013, which means that the penalty enhancement clauses were not used after the introduction of the “gay propaganda law,” leaving hate crimes against LGBTQ unseen to the public. This situation was criticized by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), which highlighted the lack of concepts adopted in international law and the ambiguity of wording which makes it impossible to collect statistics on hate crimes depending on their motive (ECRI report on the Russian Federation (fifth monitoring cycle), 2018). The suggestions from the ECRI report were never adopted and the existing legal mechanisms remain inefficient for monitoring hate crimes, a different method of generating statistics through analyzing court decisions has to be adopted. The current research bridges this gap by using the concepts of hate crimes available in the literature and generating data that is not reported by the authorities.

Methodology

This section will first elaborate on the sources of data that were used in the research (including the databases of judicial documents and the court rulings themselves). It will then describe the process of data collection and introduce three criteria that were applied in order to identify hate crimes against LGBTQ (base offense, bias motive, and sexuality of the victim).

Sources: databases of court rulings

The research is focused on one type of data: court rulings of criminal cases related to violence against LGBTQ. These can be found in public databases. The original research used two databases to obtain such documents. First, the e-system Pravosudie (ГАС Правосудие) (https://sudrf.ru/) – an official database of information on judicial documents in Russia, developed by the Supreme Court. The database includes documents of all courts of the Russian Federation. Although the database was created in 2006, the most complete documentation is available after 2010. As of March 2022, Pravosudie includes almost 13.000.000 texts related to criminal cases (Pravosudie, no date).

Another database used in the original research is no longer available – RosPravosudie was a nonprofit and non-government project, created to provide more transparency and openness to justice in Russia. The database was however discontinued in 2018 after the website was blocked by the Russian authorities.

The current research is adding two additional databases, both from private companies. These two databases are not publicly available and offer access to their data as subscription-based services. First, Garant (Гарант) system – the first large-scale commercial legal information system in Russia (since 1990) developed by Garant-Service-Universitet LLC. This system is intended for legal specialists and contains a variety of documents: federal and regional legal acts, acts of government bodies, and a database of court decisions. As of March 2021, Garant contained almost 10.000.000 texts of criminal proceedings (http://english.garant.ru/, no date).

Second is Consultant Plus (Консультант Плюс) – a similar legal information system developed by ConsultantPlus LLC in 1992. It provides access to up-to-date databases on federal, international, and regional legislation as well as a database of court rulings that contains almost 20.000.000 texts of criminal proceedings (About ConsultantPlus\Консультант Плюс, no date). Using these two additional databases mitigates two limitations that the original research had: the fact that Pravosudie does not contain criminal cases from Moscow – the biggest city and the most populous region of Russia, as well as the fact that RosPravosudie is no longer available. This significantly improves the results and helps to make the research more comprehensive.

Analyzing court rulings

The three databases used for research purposes (state-owned Pravosudie, private Garant, and Consultant Plus) allow searching for court judgments using keywords. In the original research, a set of keywords was developed based on the most common terminology used by courts in relation to LGBTQ. The current research used the same set of keywords to allow homogeneity of the data.² After the initial screening, irrelevant documents were disregarded. Then the search results were analyzed in order to identify cases that satisfy three criteria: (1) the case is a case of a criminal offense (base offense criteria), (2) the victim is associated with LGBTQ (sexuality of the victim – either presumed or real – is mentioned in the text), (3) the motive of the crime and the choice of the victim is related to the characteristic of LGBTQ as a social group (bias motive criteria). These three criteria helped to identify the documents that are of interest.

The documents are then retrieved from databases and analyzed further. All the documents are first-instance court decisions in an anonymized form. The anonymized data is mostly the names and surnames of the participants of the process, their places of work, etc. Other details are presented in full, including the information on the victim’s sexual orientation.

All the documents have the same structure. According to the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (Chapter 39), a first instance court judgment consists of four parts – introductory, descriptive, motivational (these two are not strongly divided into sections), and resolutive. The introductory part of the judgment contains the name of the court that rendered the verdict, the composition of the court, the information on the participants of the trial, the defendant, and the provision of the Criminal Code for the crime of which the defendant is accused. The descriptive part starts with a general report on the criminal offense (usually as it was presented by the investigation and the prosecutor) indicating the place, time, method, motives, goals and consequences of the crime. The motivational part of the judgment starts with analyzing testimonies of the defendant, the victim, and then witnesses, then proceeds to analyze other evidence. The motivational part also includes the qualification of the crime, aggravating circumstances, and other legal measures that need to be applied. Finally, the resolutive part of the judgment contains the final verdict of the court (Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, 2001, arts. 304, 307, 308). Therefore, the information on the base offense is found in the introductory part, while the information on the sexuality of the victim and motives of the perpetrator – are in either descriptive (established by the court or the investigation) or motivational (in testimonies or other evidence).

First criteria: base offense

Similar to the original research, this paper is focused on criminal cases only. This is to satisfy the requirement of a base offense in the operationalized definition – the act constitutes an offense under ordinary criminal law. Most of the crimes that were identified fall under two chapters of the Criminal Code: either Crimes Against Life and Health (Articles 105 – Murder, 111, 112, 115 – Intentional Infliction of Injury, 119 – Threat of Murder), or Crimes Against Property (Articles 158 – Theft, 159 – Swindling, 160 – Misappropriation, 161 – Robbery, 162 – Robbery with Violence, 163 – Extortion, 167 – Willful Destruction or Damage of Property). The research disregarded the criminal cases with no specified victim (such as crimes against public order).

Second criteria: sexuality of the victim

In court judgments, the sexuality of victims is mentioned either in the descriptive part (in that case it is established by the investigation and the court) or in the motivational part (in that case it is mentioned in the testimonies of the accused, witnesses, or among other evidence). Usually, the courts use the same language in order to describe the sexuality of the victim (“non-traditional sexual orientation”). In the majority of the cases, the information is provided by the defendants themselves in their testimony:

[from the testimony of the defendant] C.A. indicated that together with his friends < … > they are members of a social group “Occupy Pedophilia”, whose members are against homosexuality and pedophilia. [the group] decided to earn extra money in the following way: find people who are prone to same-sex relations on social media, lure them into an apartment (thereby verifying their non-traditional sexual inclinations) and then film them confessing on camera that they are pedophiles. This record would then be used in order to demand money from that person.

judgment 1-24/2017 Traktorozavodsky District Court, Chelyabinsk Oblast

As can be seen from this excerpt, the defendant does not conceal the fact that the homosexual target was chosen intentionally. However, apart from the testimonies of defendants, there is still a significant number of cases where courts themselves established that the choice of the victim was based on their sexuality. In that case, this information is included in the general report of the crime (descriptive section):

[circumstances of the case established by the court] A. intentionally caused grievous bodily harm, dangerous to human life, resulting in the death of the victim B. < … > The motive for committing the crime for A. was a personal dislike, due to the fact that B. is a person with a non-traditional sexual orientation.

judgment 1-22/2020 Tashtagolsky District Court, Kemerovo Oblast

In this instance, a “personal dislike” due to the sexual orientation of the victim as a motive for a crime is among the facts established by the court, which is sufficient for the research.

Not in all cases does the actual sexuality of the victim match the way it is perceived by the offender. There are cases when an offender selects a victim because of a mistaken perception of the victim as LGBTQ. In that case, the perpetrator perceives information (for example, a hairstyle, an earring, etc.) that is, potentially falsely, attributed to the sexuality of the victim and it serves as a trigger of the attack:

[testimony of the victim] This young man behaved aggressively, insulted him, called him a person of non-traditional orientation because he had a piercing in his ear (gold-plated earrings). He tried not to pay attention to it, so as not to provoke further conflict. However, the young man, came closer, hit him with his hand, grabbed his neck, and began to pull out the earrings causing him pain.

judgment 1-172/2016 Preobrazhensky District Court, Moscow

[testimony of the defendant] He noticed that people were passing by, one of them had bleached hair. He thought that the person was of non-traditional sexual orientation and decided to beat him up.

judgment 1-13/2019 Justice of the Peace, judicial district 11, Altai Krai

In these two examples, the appearance of the victims served as a trigger for the attack. Regardless of the actual sexuality of the victims, these cases do qualify as hate crimes against LGBTQ since the appearance (earrings in the first case and bleached hair in the second) was enough for the perpetrator to perceive the victims as LGBTQ and attack them based on that.

Third criteria: bias motive

The bias motive means that the perpetrator intentionally chooses the target of the crime because of some protected characteristic (ODIHR, 2009, p. 16), in the original research such protected characteristics include “victims’ real or perceived underprivileged sexuality or gender expression” (Kondakov, 2019). This element is the most important one because it differentiates hate crimes from other crimes. In this instance, the terminology “hate crime” might be misleading because the perpetrator does not have to feel direct “hatred” toward the victim. For the purpose of the research, I use two modules of defining motive described by ODIHR – hostility and discriminatory selection. The main difference between these two is the presence of an emotional element in choosing the victim.

Hostility model

In the hostility model, the offender must have committed the offense because of hostility or hatred based on one of the protected characteristics (ODIHR, 2009, p. 47). This requires evidence that the offender demonstrated or acted out of enmity toward the victim – this might be insults or aggressive acts prior to the crime (for example, when the victim is being insulted after coming out and then it escalates into a crime). This model is difficult to apply since it requires evidence of a strong emotional connection between the protected characteristic and the perpetrator’s motivation and this might be subjective. Perry (2001), ODIHR (2009) as well as ECtHR (in Nachova v Bulgaria) suggested that one way to establish hostility toward victims can be evidence of manifestations of such hostility immediately before or right after the crime. When analyzing the cases of hate crimes, the research identified 4 main types of such hostile manifestations. First, statements of hostility/hatred toward LGBTQ in general:

[testimony of the witness] At about 5 am M came into his room. He asked what happened, but M. directed the knife at his side, the knife was covered in blood, and told him to be silent or he would also be killed. He then said that homosexuals should not live, using obscene language. M. directed the knife to NAME1ʹs throat while saying that. After that, M. took his belongings and left the room.

judgment 1-387/2013 Butyrsky District Court, Moscow

In this instance, the offender’s comment “homosexuals should not live” was addressed to one of the witnesses right after committing a murder, which reveals the motive of the act.

Second, insults and derogatory comments on the victim’s sexuality:

After robbing Z., the young people began insulting Z. a person of non-traditional sexual orientation, beating him, calling him names, and pouring beer on him. Then one of them began to burn his hair. Z. was forced to eat soil and confess that he is of non-traditional sexual orientation. They also tried to shave his head. In addition, he was strangled with suspenders. The young people filmed everything that happened on the cameras of mobile phones.

judgment 1-594/2016 Promyshlenny District Court, Stavropol Krai

In this example, the victim was targeted using dating apps and attacked by a group of offenders. The records of the case include insults and derogatory comments about the victim’s sexuality during the attack, which is considered to be a manifestation of hostility.

The third type of manifestation of hostility is asking questions about the victim’s sexuality immediately before the crime as an attempt of verification by the perpetrator for motive-justification:

Z was washing the dishes and V thought he was behaving unnaturally feminine. Seeing this, V asked him: “You are so effeminate, are you top or bottom?”. Z replied that it was none of his business. Then V said: “I see now - you are a homosexual”. After that, a fight broke out between them, V became very angry, he grabbed a knife from the knife rack. He hit Z with this knife, Z tried to run away from him. He ran out of the kitchen and struck Z a couple more blows with his knife, after which Z fell, and blood flowed profusely. He began to inflict many random blows on his body. He beat him with a knife randomly, Z tried to snatch the knife and grabbed the blade, but he pulled his hand back. After that, he hit him with a couple more blows and Z stopped moving. V went to the kitchen and noticed that the entire floor was stained with blood. He went to the gas stove to light a cigarette.

judgment 1-3/2011 Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania

In the above example, the questions regarding the victim’s sexuality preceded the attack. Similarly, in many cases, asking questions can be a way to initiate the fight and express hostile attitudes about the LGBTQ.

Finally, the manifestations of hostility can be observed in cases when the perpetrators intend to “punish” the victims for being homosexual. This might include auxiliary acts, (beyond the crime itself) that are intended for degrading the victim:

NAME18 pleaded guilty and explained that on <date> he was drinking alcohol with NAME19. NAME19 told him that he was a person of non-traditional sexual orientation, and offered him to enter into an intimate homosexual relationship. This made him angry, he beat NAME19, struck him with multiple blows to his face and body, < … >. At the same time, in order to punish NAME19 for homosexual inclinations, in order to humiliate the latter, he forced the latter to be naked, and photographed him on the phone, forcing him to demonstrate his genitals, while expressing threats and insults.

judgment 1-26/2015 Khanty-Mansiysky District Court, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug

In this instance, the victim was attacked after recognizing his homosexuality. After attacking the victim, the offender tried to also punish him for his “homosexual inclinations,” which manifests hostility toward LGBTQ.

In some cases, open manifestations of hostility (insults, etc) are absent. However, the crime happens immediately after the victim comes out to the perpetrator. In that case, violence is the response to the new information that the perpetrator learns about the sexuality of the victim.

[testimony of the defendant] The three of them began to drink vodka. At some point, B. informed him of his non-traditional sexual orientation. This made him angry and he hit B. in the face with his fist 2 times. B. fell to the floor near the sofa. He then hit him with his feet. After that, he decided to leave but before that - to steal something from the things belonging to the victim in order to sell them, and buy alcohol.

judgment 1-20/2010 Zaraysky City Court, Moscow Oblast

In the above example, it is not entirely clear if the offender committed the crime out of the hostile feelings that he had toward the victim, at least no manifestations of such hostility were recorded. However, it is apparent that the crime was committed immediately after the defendant became aware of the victim’s sexuality.

Discriminatory selection model

In the discriminatory selection model, the offender deliberately targets the victim because of a protected characteristic, but no actual hatred or hostility is necessary to prove the offense. This model includes crimes where a stereotypically vulnerable target is chosen, normally those who are less likely to report the crime to the police (for example, when a gay person is robbed on the assumption that they will be too scared to report the crime).

Defendant M pleaded guilty at the hearing and testified that he met K in 2010. < … > M had financial difficulties, which K knew about and the latter suggested to rob people of non-traditional sexual orientation, finding them on the Internet, to which M agreed. < … > Fulfilling the plan, they met P, who invited them to the apartment, where they spent some time talking. < … > M went into the bedroom and saw that P was lying face down on the bed, his arms and legs were tied, as it seemed to him, with straps. K said that he used a choke hold on P, and he lost consciousness for a while, but he would soon come to his senses. After that, together with K, they left the apartment with the stolen property, took a taxi to Komsomolskaya Square, where they sold the stolen property for about 20 thousand rubles, which they shared equally. He did not have an agreement on the murder of the victim with K, these actions of the latter were unexpected for him and are an excess of the perpetrator.

judgment 2-7/2014 Moscow City Court

In the above example, it can be seen that the group of offenders decided to commit a crime due to “financial difficulties.” Robbing homosexual victims was seen as a solution to that. Therefore, the offenders were mainly profit-oriented and no direct hostility was expressed.

Another form of discriminatory selection crime would be a case when the perpetrator commits a crime for peer approval and gaining status and acceptance (for example, so-called “gay bashing”). The discriminatory selection is broader since it is applied to the cases when crimes are committed “because of” or “by reason of” the victim’s protected characteristic. In other words, this causal link does not have to include or specify any emotions of the perpetrator. The following is one example of that:

On the opposite side of the boulevard, a man was sitting on a bench, A, E, and M approached this man to keep him company. The man introduced himself as N. and the four of them began to drink alcohol on a bench. During the conversation, N. said that he is a person of non-traditional sexual orientation. A. began to laugh at him, and M told A. that he should beat N. and take away the property that is with him, for which A. said that he did not want to beat him. M said if A and E do not want to beat N then they are persons of non-traditional sexual orientation as well. Then A inflicted N, one sharp blow with the fist of his right hand and immediately a second sharp blow with the fist of his left hand to the face, from which N immediately fell off the bench, and at that moment E came up. and inflicted two blows on his face with his fists. Further, M told A. to take the backpack of N.

judgment 1-31/2019 Kuzminsky District Court, Moscow

In this excerpt, after realizing the sexuality of the victim, one of the offenders (M.) encouraged others to beat the victim. After they refused, M. pressured them by saying that if they do not do it, they are homosexuals as well. After this, the two other offenders attacked the victim.

One last notion about the discriminatory selection model is that very often the very nature of the attack shows that it was motivated by a biased selection of the target. For example, in cases of dating violence, the victims were found through gay dating apps and websites.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this section, in a vast majority of cases evidence of the bias motive appears in either testimony of the defendant or the circumstances of the case. However, the courts seldom use the word “hatred,” it is usually either “personal enmity” or “personal dislike.” This wording is common since the legal consequences of this would not be as serious as if there was a direct indication of a hate motive. The “dislike” formula is convenient for courts and investigators in terms of procedure, since it fills the gaps in the evidence base, but is not time-consuming and does not require further investigation (it’s ambiguity means it does not need as strong evidence base to justify as hatred).

[facts established by the court] DD.MM.YYYY at about 10 o’clock, due to the personal enmity towards NAME1 which came from the fact that the latter is a homosexual, acting intentionally, in order to cause grievous bodily harm, NAME2 provoked a conflict. During the conflict, he hit NAME1 on the head, causing NAME1, bodily injuries from which NAME1 died at the scene.

judgment dated 28.04.2011 Stavropol Krai

In the above example, the court used the wording “personal enmity” to describe the motivation of the perpetrator.

The three criteria described in this section (base offense, the sexuality of the victim, and the bias motive) proved to be useful in identifying the cases of hate crimes against LGBTQ among thousands of court rulings. The examination of cases is used to build a database of crimes, generating criminal statistics and facilitating qualitative analysis of the main categories of crimes. This is discussed in the following section.

Data description and interpretation of the results

Dynamics of hate crimes against LGBT in Russia (2010–2020)

By applying the criteria of hate crimes from legal literature, the research was able to investigate such documents over the course of 11 years – from 2010 to 2020. The following main figures were identified: 1056 crimes committed were committed against 853 victims with 365 cases resulting in fatalities. The data is broken down further, it shows an increasing trend in the number of hate crimes against LGBTQ (Figure 5). Besides that, the number of crimes after 2013 (the year when the “gay propaganda law” entered into force) is higher and remains at a higher level until the end of the decade. In 2014 for example, the number is three times higher than in 2010.

Figure 3 illustrates the main findings. The number of crimes is the number of times a criminal offense was recognized by the courts. It is possible that several different crimes were committed against one individual, which will bring a number of qualifications into the case with one victim only (a very common example is a murder (Article 105) combined with theft (Article 158) – in that case, the perpetrator will be accused of committing two crimes). Conversely, in a single case there might be several victims. Therefore, the number of victims can be considered as a proxy for the number of cases while the number of crimes represents the number of convictions. All three numbers (crimes, victims, and fatalities) show a similar trend and are consistent throughout 11 years which illustrates the credibility of this categorization.

Figure 3. Number of hate crimes against LGBTQ in Russia (2010–2020).

The increase in the number of hate crimes against LGBTQ cannot be attributed to the overall level of criminality. In order to illustrate that, the research compared the official statistics of crimes available (for 2 types of crimes – Murder and Bodily harm, as those are most likely to be reported) and the number of similar crimes against LGBTQ people (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Crimes against LGBTQ in comparison with the overall level of crimes.

Figure 5. Type of crimes: Base offense.

The overall trend for those crimes in the country is negative and the numbers have been gradually decreasing over the years, while similar crimes against LGBTQ do not follow the same trend and show a spike between 2013–2015.

The study has a number of limitations. It includes only the incidents that reached the courts, it is unable to cover unreported crimes. How many people report such incidents? Russian LGBT Network in its annual reports on violence and discrimination suggested that in 2021 the report rate for hate crime incidents was 9.7% (3430 participants), while in 2020 it was between 2–7% depending on a region (>6000 participants; Issledovaniye disckriminatsii v otnoshenii LGBT lyudey, no date). Therefore, numbers generated by this study lie in this small percentage of reported crimes. One can hypothesize the more accurate number of incidents of homophobic violence using the trend offered in the present research and the report rate suggested by the NGO. Additionally, the numbers from LGBT Network show that the increase in the level of violence cannot be attributed to the increased level of reporting, since reporting such crimes remains at a very low level.

Nevertheless, the data allows drawing some critical propositions and hypotheses for further research. First, violence against LGBTQ people in Russia is systematic, since these are not isolated cases. Second, as the ECtHR rightly hypothesized, there is a potential influence of the “gay propaganda law” on the number of such crimes, since it is higher after 2013 and remains at relatively the same level throughout the decade.

Types of crimes: base offense

The research suggests two further categorizations. First of all, the “number of crimes” is further clarified based on the types of offenses according to the Criminal Code. This will allow seeing what kind of offenses are committed against LGBTQ using the official terminology of the legislation. Based on the respective articles of the Criminal Code, I apply the following categories: Crimes Against Life and Health,³ Crimes Against Property,⁴ Other Crimes.⁵

As can be seen, the categorization of crimes based on the base offense shows a more or less even distribution between the categories.

There is a hypothesis in legal literature that violent attacks against LGBTQ are usually more severe. For example, Kondakov (2019) noticed that the penalties for the offenders are typically higher in cases of violence against LGBTQ due to the fact that such crimes generally tend to be more violent. Perry (2001) referred to the statistics that 60% of LGBTQ homicides “show evidence of rage or hate-fueled extraordinary violence, dismemberment of bodies, genital mutilation, use of multiple weapons, repeated blows, numerous stab wounds.” The current research tests this hypothesis by applying the “extraordinary violence” criteria to the cases in the Crimes against life and health category. This allows seeing the percentage of incidents characterized by any of the above (dismemberment of bodies, genital mutilation, use of multiple weapons, repeated blows, numerous stab wounds). The results show that out of 531 incidents in the Crimes against life and health category, 354 have at least one of the above-mentioned indications of “extreme violence,” which represents 67% of the cases in this category.

Types of crimes: bias motive

The “number of victims” is further divided into three categories based on the motivation of the offenders. The research proposes three additional categories. The first two are based on if the crime was prepared in advance (including purposefully selecting a homosexual victim) or was committed without preparation. The last category (“gay panic defense” cases) is specific for anti-LGBTQ hate crimes.

First category: Premeditated attacks (crimes that are planned in advance with a purposeful selection of a homosexual victim). It includes hate crimes that were committed with preparation. This includes attacks on LGBTQ people based on either hostility toward members of the group or selecting them as a “convenient target.” Many cases in this category are attributed to the activity of homophobic hate groups, the victims were targeted through dating apps or websites. Most commonly, this category includes crimes against property – robbery is the most common crime, but there is still a number of cases with fatalities.

Second category: Not premeditated attacks. It includes violence committed without preparation. Those crimes are often based on information about a victim that is somehow related to sexuality. Some cases in this category include violence after coming out, attacks on the basis of appearance/hairstyle, other random attacks, etc. The distinguishing feature of this category is that the crimes were committed without preparation and did not involve the purposeful targeting of homosexual victims. The fact that there is no element of preparation makes the crimes in this category less systematic, they are not the product of the activity of hate groups but they are attributed to individual actors only.

Third category: “Gay panic defense” cases. In these cases, a defendant claims to have acted in a state of violent, temporary insanity, committing assault or murder, because of unwanted same-sex sexual advances (Chuang & Addington, 1988). Not all crimes would qualify as hate crimes in this category. It is essential to use a mechanism of proportionality to analyze if the actions of the attacker were disproportionate to the claimed “unwanted same-sex sexual advances.” It helps to distinguish between cases of self-defense and shows that the perpetrator went too far. The following is an example of clearly disproportionate actions that would qualify for this category:

[testimony of the accused] When they were on the balcony, G began to touch his legs and his back, pulled him by the neck to kiss him, and offered to stay with him for the night. When G tried to kiss him, he turned and pushed him away, after which he ran into the kitchen. G followed him. At that moment, he took a knife from the table and struck G a blow. He struck him with a few more blows, G fell to the floor. He went out to the balcony and threw the knife out the window.

judgment 1-139/2015, the Republic of Mordovia

In this case, the perpetrator attacked the victim after the latter tried to kiss him. The response of the offender (attacking the victim with a knife) is disproportionate to the “unwanted sexual advances” of the victim. Therefore, this case qualifies as a hate crime incident. Results applying 3 categories are represented in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Types of crimes: bias motive.

It can be observed that the number of “gay panic defense” cases is relatively stable over the decade, unlike the other two categories. The category of premeditated attacks is specifically of interest since there are significantly more crimes in this category after 2013 (10 in 2010, 50 in 2017) but also because this category demonstrates a consistently high level of crimes. Unlike the category of not-premeditated crimes which shows an emotional spike and then a gradual decline in numbers, there had been consistently more premeditated attacks for 6 consecutive years (2014–2019). Moreover, 3 years in a row it was a predominant category of hate crime against LGBTQ in Russia (2017, 2018, 2019). It means that there is a specific type of hate crime that was enabled after 2013 and it has a long-lasting effect that only ceased at the end of the decade. For a period of time, most of the hate crimes against LGBTQ were the ones that were committed with preparation, including a purposeful selection of a homosexual target. The cases of premeditated attacks are mostly cases of collective violence, attributed to the activity of homophobic hate groups. The clear manifestation of bias together with the collective nature of these violent incidents distinguish them from other crimes in the database and make them a more advanced form of violence.

The influence of the “gay propaganda law” on the quantitative change in the number of hate crimes might be disputable since it can be described as a case of correlation rather than causation. However, the qualitative change (more cases of extreme violence, and crimes becoming more specific and more developed) strengthens the link between discriminatory policy and the rise of violence against the discriminated group and makes the progression of hate crimes more apparent. The two factors described above (more cases of extreme violence, and more cases in the category of premeditated crimes) signify a qualitative change that is being attributed to the influence of discriminatory legislation.

Conclusion

The research represents an inquiry into the dangerous nature of discriminatory legal acts. The “gay propaganda law” in this instance is a case study of a legal act restricting a salient group. The research is grounded in the theoretical assumption that discrimination (by way of imposing restrictive legislation) affects the level of violence against particular groups. The project builds on developments in the literature that consider hate crime to be a systematic product of heteronormative policies, particularly elaborating on a hypothetical statement from the ECtHR about the potential negative outcomes of the “gay propaganda law” that can lead to prejudice, homophobia, and a rise in violence against LGBTQ. The results of the research proves the ECtHR hypothesis right by providing statistics on hate crimes against LGBTQ before and after the introduction of the “gay propaganda law.”

The research employed the method of analyzing official judicial documents from Kondakov (2019) and significantly enriches the existing knowledge while at the same time mitigating the limitations that the previous research had. The current project was able to identify more than 1000 hate crime incidents between 2010 and 2020. The data shows that the number of such crimes is significantly higher after the introduction of the “gay propaganda law” in 2013. The number of planned crimes with a purposeful targeting of the homosexual victim per year is 5 times higher in 2015 than in 2010 and remains on the same level until the end of the decade, which can be attributed to the activity of the hate groups that organized such crimes.

Additionally, compared to the original research, the current project is able to generate a number of cases sufficient for descriptive analysis. This enabled the research to answer questions regarding types of hate crimes against LGBTQ. The paper categorizes the crimes based on the base offense (Crimes against life and health, Crimes against property) and on the bias motive (based on if the crimes were committed with preparation (Premeditated attacks) or without preparation (Not premeditated attacks), as well as “gay panic defense” cases).

The current research was able to articulate a qualitative change in the hate crimes against LGBTQ, showing the effects of discriminatory legislation not only through the number of violent incidents but also through their character. The research found that 67% of the crimes have indications of “extreme violence,” which proves the assumption made in the original research that crimes against LGBTQ are more severe. Moreover, the cases of premeditated attacks with the purposeful selection of a homosexual victim were prevalent after 2013. Overall, the descriptive analysis represents hate crimes against LGBTQ in Russia not as a series of isolated events but as a continuation of the systematic marginalization of this group. The violence that was partially produced by this legal act is an inevitable consequence of the introduction of such restrictions by lawmakers.

Acknowledgments

This research is a part of the PhD project, which will not be possible without the invaluable help of the supervisors of the project - Dr Sara Benedi Lahuerta and Dr Alexander Kondakov. I would like to thank them for their guidance and support throughout the project. I would also like to express gratitude to Dr Silvia Gagliardi and Dr Marie Luce Paris for their comments and helpful recommendations and Dr Matthew Cobain for his generous suggestions that helped to significantly improve the paper. Finally, I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Russian LGBT Network, Transgender Europe (TGEU), ILGA-Europe, Civic Assistance Committee, Coming Out LGBT Group, LGBT Initiative Group Stimul and SOVA Center

2. нетрадиционный (non-traditional), гомосексуализм (homosexuality), мужеложство (sodomy), лесбиянство (lesbianism), транссексуал (transsexual), меньшинство (minority).

3. Criminal Code Chapter 16, the following articles: 105 (Murder), 111, 112, 115 (Intentional Infliction of Injury), 119 (Threat of Murder)

4. Criminal Code Chapter 21, the following articles: 158 (Theft), 159 (Swindling), 160 (Misappropriation), 161 (Robbery), 162 (Robbery with Violence), 163 (Extortion), 167 (Willful Destruction or Damage of Property)

5. 4 articles of the Criminal Code that appeared in data but do not belong to the previous two categories: 126 (Abduction), 139 (Illegal Intrusion into a Property), 244 (Damage upon Bodies of the Deceased and Their Burial Places), 325 (Theft or Damage of Documents)