A/HRC/7/19/Add.3 page 14 because it does not formally comprise all forms of discrimination. However, he emphasized that existing norms are effective and pointed to the most recent examples of their application to complaints of discrimination in Latvia. 50. Some State authorities, in particular the Minister of Foreign Affairs, recognized that Latvia is facing new challenges concerning the new migratory dynamics, especially of non-European migrants, that will reach the country as it integrates in the global economy. These new waves of migration have the potential to create negative reactions on the part of some groups, particularly neo-Nazi extremists. These interlocutors therefore acknowledged that innovative policies and strategies will have to be devised to tackle emerging challenges and that it is not clear whether the Latvian society is already prepared for this new context. III. VIEWS OF CIVIL SOCIETY AND COMMUNITIES CONCERNED A. Concerns in response to State policies and measures 51. Civil society, including human rights NGOs, representatives of minorities and victims of discrimination, strongly expressed to the Special Rapporteur the perception that, contrary to the statements of most Government officials, racism and discrimination are widespread and pervasive in Latvian society. Although separate interlocutors raised different types of criticism, their common thread was concern over the lack of political leadership and willingness to tackle racism and discrimination issues, and devise policies to promote tolerance. In particular, they emphasized their concern that State institutions have been slow to recognize the central importance and current relevance of these issues and have often approached racism and discrimination as isolated instances rather than structural and deep-rooted problems. Civil society recognized the prominent position and positive role played by a few officials, in particular the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, in bringing racism and discrimination to the centre of the public debate, but argued that these are as yet lone voices in the fight against racism. 52. A grave indicator of the increase in racism and discrimination mentioned by civil society interlocutors was the mounting number of racially motivated crimes committed in the past years. This included a surge in incitement to racial, ethnic and religious hatred, often fuelled by politicians from extremist parties. Latvian legislation was considered severely deficient in terms of responding to hate speech and racially motivated crimes. Criminal prosecution of incitement to hatred has formally demanded overly high thresholds of proof to show explicit intent to incite violence. This provision has meant, in practice, that the accused must individually confess to showing intent, while other relevant indicators have not been taken into account. Furthermore, until 2006 the only provision available for prosecuting racially motivated crimes was incitement to racial, ethnic or religious hatred under section 78 of the Criminal Code. Since this type of charge often requires a higher threshold of evidence, the lack of specific provisions on hate crimes has led to widespread qualification of racist violence as cases of hooliganism, which entails softer sanctions. The amendment approved by the Saeima in 2006 to include racism as an aggravating factor in criminal acts is considered incomplete and overly general. Human rights NGOs have called for the drafting of a norm that clearly stipulates criminal liability for hate crimes.