Two years of war

The xenophobia monitoring held by the group is a direct continuation of work done under the aegis of the Congress of National Communities of Ukraine since 2006. In 2006-2008, cooperation with a variety of Ukrainian and international organizations enabled a general system for monitoring ethnic, national and religious xenophobia in Ukraine to be put into place. The “Chronicle of Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia in Ukraine” monthly bulletin has been published since 2006; starting in 2014, it has been the work of the National Minority Rights Monitoring Group. In December 2015, we published our 100th issue.

Over the course of these years, our monitoring has gained a good deal of prestige in professional circles. Our materials on Ukraine are used, among others, by the US Department of State, the Anti-Defamation League, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance, the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism of Tel-Aviv University.

It became necessary to institutionalize xenophobia monitoring as a separate activity area for the group of professional expert in the spring of 2014, when the ethno-political situation became severely worse due to the Russian invasion and the occupation first of Crimea, and then of parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Persecution of certain ethnic and religious groups on one hand and the shameless exploitation of the minority rights theme in the aggressor’s propaganda to legitimize the occupation on the other have made collecting and analyzing reliable reports on xenophobia manifestations even more important. Public interest towards this matter, both inside and outside Ukraine, required the provision of objective and current information.

As in previous years, in its report on the results of monitoring undertaken in 2015 the Group has decided to focus on hate crimes (attacks, arson attempts, and vandalism), which are the most dangerous manifestations of xenophobia. The report focuses on hate crimes aimed at private persons. Hate speech in the media and on the Internet is mostly beyond the scope of this report, largely due to an absence of resources that would allow for a systematic overview of the entirety of the media scene.¹. Due to the wide resonance and attention attracted by this topic, we have only included several particular incidents of anti-Semitic propaganda in our “Anti-Semitism” section. Moreover, even though we do not have the necessary resources to systematically monitor homophobia, we included this topic into the report due to its importance.

We thank our partner organizations and experts who made our monitoring possible. We would also like to list our most notable partner organizations in this field, particularly the Ukrainian office of the International Organization for Migration, the Ukrainian Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the “No Borders!” project of the Social Action Center, the network of non-governmental organizations “Diversity Initiative,” and the Crimean Field Mission for Human Rights.

It is impossible to list all of those who helped us by name, and in a number of cases (particularly for people currently in occupied territories) it would also be dangerous. The materials we present here have been painstakingly collected by dozens of people: participants of the network and electronic news bulletin “Diversity initiatives,” representatives of regional UNHCR partners, activists of anti-Fascists and human rights activist groups, journalists, representatives of ethnic and religious communities, organizations for the promotion of ethnic cultures, law enforcement bodies, government employees and staff members of a number of NGOs. Naturally, the responsibility for any and all mistakes and inaccuracies lies with us.

We would be grateful for any possible corrections, clarifications, and remarks on the report. Since we are continuing to monitor events, we are very interested in current information about manifestations of xenophobia in Ukraine. The head of the Group may be contacted at the following e-mail address: vyacheslav.likhachev@gmail.com. You can also write to the address above to continue to receive the most recent information about manifestations of xenophobia in Ukraine in the form of monthly bulletins and thematic reports, as well as, by request, to receive more detailed information about any past events.

We only qualify an incident as hate-motivated if there is trustworthy information about one or more clear signs pointing to such a motive. The official legal evaluation of the crime by law enforcement bodies is not a criterion for us. We only report the legal evaluation to assess how adequately and professionally the law enforcement bodies treat such cases. However, in Ukraine xenophobic crime is almost never adequately evaluated by law enforcement bodies (that is, with the motive of hate actually being taken into account).

Of course, it is usually difficult to draw a clear-cut distinction and evaluate a crime decisively. We do not always have all of the necessary information at hand, and the information we have may be untrustworthy. There is always a measure of subjectivity in the evaluation.

We should also note that our criteria for inclusion are stricter than OSCE criteria.².

The OSCE methodology dictates that a crime is classified as a hate crime even if the motive of hate had not been the only one, or if the crime had been committed for the sake of pure profit, but the victim had been selected specifically because they belong to a particular group. For example, the robbery of an international student near their dorms. The robbers might not be choosing the highly visible African or Asian students because they are racist, but rather due to a completely rational calculation that a foreigner who does not know the local language and customs well is unlikely to go to the police. Another well-known example is a common type of house robbery targeting the LGBT community. The perpetrator looks for a victim on specialized websites, and once he has been invited to a careless new acquaintance’s home, he robs the victim, often with use of violence.³. Such crimes are not at their core motivated by homophobia, but by greed. The choice of victim is purely pragmatic—someone who had been robbed in such circumstances is unlikely to go to the police. The OSCE believes that these crimes are also hate crimes; we, however, do not agree. OSCE believes that hate motives can coexist in conjunction with other motives, and in principle we agree. For example, youth neo-Nazi gangs that attacked and killed Central Asians in the streets were not averse to looting their victims’ pockets for cell phones or small amounts of money. However, they did not kill just to steal cell phones. If they were looking for profit, they would not have been targeting street cleaners.

We believe that hate crimes are crimes in which hatred for a certain group is the main motivation. In these cases, unless we have additional evidence that suggests otherwise, the motive is profit. The victim is selected from a certain group, but not because the perpetrator is intolerant towards that group. It is a rational decision to select a vulnerable victim. For much the same reasons, robbers also target foreigners in general (and not just Asians and Africans), buyers of drugs, and those who go to prostitutes.

The OSCE also believes that any crime wherein the criminal insults the victim based on their real or false (that is, real only according to the criminal’s beliefs) identity as a member of a particular group is a hate-motivated crime. For example, on March 22, 2015, three unidentified persons severely beat the chief children’s neurosurgeon Aleksandr Dukhovsky, and the insults they shouted during the attack included “kike-face”⁴. However, both the investigation and the victim believe the attack to have been motivated by the victim’s professional activities⁵. We do not evaluate such crimes as hate crimes and have not included them in our statistic. The slang word for “homosexual” is one of the most common slurs in Slavic language, and its connection with sexuality and/or gender identity is by now quite remote. We do not think that any crime accompanied by the use of this slur is a homophobic crime.
● On the evening of February 1, a group of young men lured in a citizen of Jordan to 34 Prospekt Svobody (Kharkiv, near the Aleksandrovskaya metro station) under the pretense of meeting with a young woman. The meeting had been arranged in advance through the Internet. The young men beat and tortured the Jordanian, continuously insulting his national dignity. The torture concluded in murder.

The case has been taken to court for five of the participants, including the murderer⁶. The evaluation of the crime included the “racial hatred” motive.

The victim was finally able to hide from his pursuers in an Arab cafe at the Bessarabskiy Market. The staff called an ambulance for the victim. The victim received multiple fractures of his fingers and shin, as well as bruises of the head.

He declined to inform the police.⁷.

The attackers seem to be soccer fans who were returning from a match in the Olimpic National Sports Complex.

There were approximately 30–40 attackers, and they divided themselves into two groups as they approached the dormitories. Some of them were armed with baseball bats and various bladed/pointed articles. Both citizens of Ukraine and international students were victims of the attacks. 9 of the victims had to receive medical help for cranial trauma and cut/stab wounds. Three were given first aid and then received ambulatory care, and six had to be hospitalized. Four of those who had to be hospitalized were citizens of Jordan. The condition of two of them was serious enough to require an operation⁹. Two of the victims flew to Jordan for treatment on June 15.

The attackers also trashed cars, broke windows, and killed two dogs.

The police arrested 5 suspects on the night of June 11. The perpetrator’s actions were qualified according to Article 296, Part 4 (“hooliganism”), Article 15, Part 2 (“criminal attempt”), Article 115, Part 1 (“attempted murder”), and Article 187, Part 2 (“brigandism”) of the Ukrainian Criminal Code.¹⁰.

Chief of the Regional Police Central Office Anatoliy Dmitriyev said that the police will tighten security in areas of residence of international students and that police patrolling courses will be adjusted to reflect the situation.

It remains unknown whether the attacker were members of any organization and what their motives were. According to unofficial information provided by law enforcement bodies,¹¹ultras soccer fans were among the attackers. Some media outlets and discussions in online social networks have put forward assumptions that the incident was some kind of punitive action, a response by local youths to an unknown conflict with the international students;¹²however, we were unable to confirm this version of events.

The victims and onlookers opinions on motivations of the attack are divided. Some believe the attackers did not care about the ethnicity and appearance of the victims,¹³while others think that foreigners were specifically targeted for the attack, as the only locals that had been hurt were together with Asian and African students at the time. The sum of information about the victims allows us to state with certainty that most of the victims were foreigners.

Posts approving the actions of the attackers appeared on social networks and on certain radical right websites. The “VKontakte” social network’s community “Voice of the Nation/The Ultra-Right Activist” published a post titled “Patriots in Kharkiv attacked black-assed “students” with melee weapons.”¹⁴. The authors of the post described several “deficiencies in the operation,” including: “1) Didn’t finish culling the occupants); 2) some f...kers brought cell phones and so wound up detained by morning.”

The official website of the “Stepan Bandera Tryzub” organization, which became the base for the Right Sector’s creation, also approved of the attackers. The article published in their defense began thus: “the hounds of the regime have arrested young people that put migrant students, who had brazenly terrorized locals, into their proper place.” The article uses extremely harsh expressions, such as “zaydy” (uninvited guests), “prybludy” (bastards), and so on¹⁵.

The Kharkiv division of the Azov civilian corps batallion made a statement that “not a single one of our representatives or fighters had anything to do with these events at all, much less directly take part in them.” The statement also notes that Azov published it because “law enforcement officials have made unofficial conjectures during the investigation that representatives of the Azov civilian corps and fighters of the Azov batallion might have been involved.”¹⁶.

On June 13, the Ukrainian Security Services Chairman Valentyn Nalyvaichenko stated that the Kharkiv bloodbath might have been organized by the Russian intelligence services. According to Nalyvaichenko, the “groups were local, but they were provoked and inspired by foreign intelligence services—Russian intelligence services.” He believes that the provocation was organized because “precisely before Russia Day someone wanted a horrifying picture for the use of Russia’s propaganda machine”¹⁷.

On June 15, the foreign students of Kharkiv’s universities assembled at Constitution Square in Kharkiv for a rally. The students demanded that the perpetrators of the pogrom be punished accordingly¹⁸.

On June 24, five of those detained in connection to the case were released after investigatory action was taken. None of them were served with notices of suspicion. The Kharkiv City Ministry of Interior Affairs Department said that several criminal cases were opened after the massive fight, including four for “attempted murder” as well as “brigandism” (one of the students had been robbed; the attackers took his cell phone and a piece of jewellery (chain)) and “hooliganism”¹⁹.

On July 3, First Prosecutor Deputy of Kharkiv Oblast Artem Stepanov said that over 700 witnesses had been questioned in connection to the case²⁰. He also said that “we have an understanding of who might be part of this crime, and we are collecting evidence so that we are able say with certainty to whom we can give notice of suspicion.”²¹.

On July 24, the head of the Main Division of the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kharkiv Oblast Anatoliy Dmitriev told the journalist that the police have their first suspect in the July 11 Kharkiv pogrom case. He has been given notice of suspicion for a crime qualified under Article 296, Part 4 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code (“hooliganism”)²². The police denies the possibility that the crime had been motivated by inter-ethnic hatred, as “only four” of the victims were citizens of Jordan. The investigation believes that “it was just a regular brawl: Someone talked smack at a young couple, that went on for a while, then more guys came up, and these ones had knives, and then a fight ensued”²³.

On December 23, the PR Department of the Kharkiv Oblast Prosecutor’s office said that a nineteen-year-old student, who had been an active participant in the “so-called Jordan pogrom” of June 11 (as the Prosecutor’s office termed it in their statement), has been taken to criminal court. The acts of the suspect are qualified according to Article 294, Part 1 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code (“ Organizing riots accompanied with violence against any person, riotous damage, arson, destruction of property, taking control of buildings or construction, forceful eviction of citizens, resistance to authorities with the use of weapons or any other things used as weapons, and also active participation in riots”).

According to the statement made by the PR Department, “the pre-trial investigation has determined that the ‘march against the Jordanites’ had been prepared in advance due to a conflict about a young woman”. “Young people in masks attacked students from Jordan near a cafe where the foreigners had taken to spending their free time, and then gave chase, destroying their cars in the process. Particularly, one of the suspects in the riots broke the window of a car belonging to a 28-year-old citizen of Jordan, who had been in the car at the time, and damaged the body of the car.” The damages from the suspect’s actions are estimated at 14,5 thousand hryvnia.²⁴
● On June 18, a Ukrainian citizen of Tajik heritage, who had recently graduated from school, had been attacked in Kharkiv. According to the victim, the attack happened at approximately 22:00, when he had been coming up to the Naukova metro station. About 10-15 people surrounded the victim in a narrow alley. According to the victim, his attackers looked like radical right activists, particularly due to them wearing their jeans with characteristically rolled up legs. One of the attackers said “we carve up non-Russians!” and they began beating him. The victim began to scream for help loudly, and the attackers ran off. As a final blow, one of the hooligans used pepper spray on the victim²⁵.

The victim had been given first aid at the local mosque. He decided not to file a statement with the police.

Since we do not have adequate follow-up information on this report, we are not including it into our final statistic.

Criminal proceedings were opened, and preliminary assessment qualified the case according to Article 296, Part 2 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code (“hooliganism”). The victim received a concussion and soft-tissue bruises on his head.²⁷.

Passersby interfered, demanding that the police show their own documents. “Is this because I’m black? You’re racist!” said the student who had been attacked to the policeman.

A passerby caught the incident on camera and published the recording online. The video garnered significant resonance.²⁹. The Kharkiv police promised to report once the incident had been subjected to internal review.³⁰.

On December 29 the PR Department of the Kharkiv Oblast Prosecutor’s Office reported that the case of the 31-year-old policeman and the 44-year-old patrol police inspector, who beat the student from Gana, had been taken to the Moscow District Court of Kharkiv³¹.

The incident was qualified according to Article 365, Part 2 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code (“Excess of authority or official powers”).
● On August 19, a fifteen-year-old dark-skinned youth, Uzu David, was attacked in the Kyiv metro. The attack took place at approximately 7:30 PM. According to the victim, a group of over 40 people entered the train carriage. The young people were acting out of line and violated public order. They accosted the dark-skinned youth with racist slurs and threats. When Uzu David left the train at the Poznyaky metro station, a group of approximately ten people surrounded him at the platform. They began shoving him and hitting him. The beating was stopped by other passengers, who interfered.

The policeman on duty of the Line Control Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (division responsible for security on railways and metro lines - transl.) was absent from his post. The victim filed a complain with the Darnitsya Regional Department of the Main Department of the MIA of Ukraine in the city of Kyiv.³².

Criminal proceedings were instigated according to Article 125, part 1 of the Ukrainia Criminal Code (“Intended minor bodily injury”).³³.

On September 24, it became known that the charges for the criminal proceedings instigated after the beating of a dark-skinned youth in the Kyiv metro have been amended from Article 125, Part 1 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code (“Intended minor bodily injury”) to Article 161, Part 2 (“Willful actions inciting national, racial or religious enmity and hatred, humiliation of national honor and dignity [...] accompanied with violence”).³⁴.

Former Right Sector political party candidate Oleg Kutserib, who had earlier publicly admitted that he had committed homophobic attacks, wrote to the victim’s mother on Facebook. She had posted the details of the incident, and Kutserib had commented to support racist violence towards the youth, using racist slurs as he did it³⁵. After the politician’s statements gained a wide resonance, the Right Sector made an official statement, in which they noted that “the person named Oleg Kutserib has no relation to our organization at the moment.” According to the statement of the Kyiv wing of the Right Sector, “he did indeed run for an MP position with us in the autumn; however, later he was banned from our organization due to his actions, which denigrated the party’s honor.”³⁶.

On August 21, Ombudsman of Ukraine Valeriya Lutkovska made an open request to the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Internal Affairs to take the investigation under their personal control and to take measures to ensure a full and objective investigation of the case and its circumstances connected to manifestations of racial intolerance, which are present in the perpetrators’ actions.³⁷.

According to official information provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the victim cut his hand when he fell on a broken glass bottle. The report notes that this version is confirmed by a surveillance camera installed in one of the nearby stores.

Participants of the incident, having been taken to the Shevchenkivsky district police department, refused to file writte statements and said that they have no claims against each other.³⁹.

Since we do not have adquate follow-up information on this report, we are not including it into our final statistic.

The body of the man was found in a local lake three days later⁴¹. As was later determined, he died of natural causes. The deceased had epilepsy. As best can be reconstructed, he had an attack on the shore and fell into the water⁴².

We are not including this tragic incident in our statistic and are including it in the write-up only because an anti-Semitic crime had been suspected before the true cause of death was determined. Before the Israeli’s body had been found, a video recording had been published on the Internet, where people dressed in military clothes and with a Ukrainian flag mock and beat a man dressed as an Orthodox Jew. The thugs even imitated shooting their prisoner and threatened to blow him up with a grenade.⁴³. Even though the precise time and place of the video shoot remains undetermined, suspicions have been voiced in connection to the video’s publication that the young man might have become a hostage of nationalist anti-Semites.⁴⁴. As far as can be determined through circumstantial evidence, the video shoot was staged and has nothing to do with the Uman tragedy.
● On October 20, during a match in Kyiv between the Dynamo (Kyiv) and Chelsea teams of the UEFA Champions League, fans of the Kyiv club severely beat four black spectators, as well as several people who tried to protect the victims. The incident happened at the 19th sector of the Olimpiyskiy National Sports Complex. It has been supposed that the attackers might be connected to the fan-group “Rodichi” (“Kindred”).⁴⁵. Moreover, at least one more black spectator was hurt due to a concerted assault at sector 23 of the stadium. According to eyewitnesses of the beatings, which have been recorded on video by the “2 + 2” channel, the attacks were accompanied by shouts of “White power!”, which is certainly an indicator of a hate motive in the attackers’ actions.⁴⁶.

According to an official statement by the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs made on October 23, the Pechersk District Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kyiv, criminal proceedings have been instigated to investigate the crime. The incident was qualified according to Article 296, Part 2 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code (“hooliganism”).

The incident garnered a wide resonance both in Ukraine and abroad. Particularly, an upsurge of indignation was caused by an inappropriate statement made by Vladimir Spilnichenko, the Director of the Olimpiyskiy National Sport Complex. When talking to a “2 + 2” journalist, Spilnichenko said that it might be a good idea to create a separate sector for dark-skinned spectators. Later, the stadium’s PR department said that the statement had been taken out of context and, in fact, that the director of the sports complex had in fact spoken against creating separate sectors for different categories of spectators.⁴⁷.

Many of the commentators, particularly Dynamo Vice President Alexei Semenenko, have supposed that the incident had been a “provocation,” an “act planned in advance” by somebody who is “interested in making the social situation of every Ukrainian citizen worse.” We do not believe that this version has much merit.⁴⁸.

On November 6, the Vice President of the Football Federation of Ukraine Igor Kochetov said that “the group of people, seven people in all, has been identified, there are photographs, and criminal proceedings have been opened”⁴⁹.

On November 22, President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko commented on the incident during a meeting with the players of the Ukrainian national football team. Poroshenko said that “there are ample grounds to say that the tracks from the latest provocations at the Dynamo-Chelsey match lead to Russia. Their goal was to create a situation wherein Ukraine could be accused of racism”⁵⁰.

Meanwhile, community activists have held an informal investigation, whose results were published on November 24 at the bukvy.com website. The most active attackers were identified through photos and video recordings of the incident. They turned out to be national-radicals who are well-known among football fans, participants of radical right football fan groups, who have in recent years been connected to the Azov civilian corps and personally with MP Andriy Biletsky⁵¹.

As became known on November 25, the UEFA decided to fine “Dynamo” over the October 20 racist incident for 100 thousand euros. Moreover, the team has been ordered to play the next two UEFA home matches behind closed doors, with a third suspended for a probationary period of three years⁵².

On December 17, the Main Department of National Police in Kyiv has stated that they have ascertained the identity of one of the attackers. He has been given notice of suspicion for committing a crime qualified according to Article 296, Part 2 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code (“hooliganism”). The Main Police Department has announced that the case will be taken to court “very soon.” According to the police, other participants in the incident have not been identified yet. Materials referring to the unidentified perpetrators have been moved to separate criminal proceedings⁵³.
● A citizen of Guinea had been attacked on November 9 in Lviv. The attack took place late at night, at about 1AM, and happened on Chornovola street. The victim was attacked by a group of four or more people. The attackers shouted racist insults as they beat him⁵⁴.

The victim sustained a broken jaw, and his ear had been damaged by a sharp object. He had been hospitalized and later had an operation.

At approximately 9 PM, when the Somali stepped outside the train at Bilaya Tserkva, five unidentified persons followed him. He attempted to run away, but they caught up with him and attacked from behind. The attackers severely beat the victim using their hands and legs. Passersby found the unconscious victim and called an ambulance. He had been hospitalized on the night of November 20, ⁵⁵and left the hospital five days later due to bad conditions within the hospital.

The victim filed a statement with the police. Criminal proceedings were opened, with the crime being preliminarily qualified as “intended minor bodily injury.”⁵⁶.