A/HRC/28/64/Add.1 some regions, it is necessary for all relevant actors, including the United Nations human rights monitoring team, to identify incidents or trends that indicate that violence or intimidation on the grounds of ethnicity, language or religion are increasing. 24. In April and May 2014, unrest in southern and eastern Ukraine escalated significantly with public buildings in localities including Donetsk, Kharkiv, Odesa and Slovyansk falling under the occupation of pro-Russian activists and violent incidents as Ukrainian authorities responded. Vaguely defined pro-Russian elements, including organized and illegally armed groups, often emerged in previously peaceful locations, sometimes with tragic consequences. Such incidents have the potential to further divide communities along ethnic and linguistic lines and create the conditions for the escalation of tensions. 25. On 11 May 2014, pro-Russian elements in separatist-controlled cities and towns in Donetsk and Luhansk regions held “referendums” asking “Do you support the act of State self-rule of the Donetsk/Luhansk People’s Republic?” The vote was condemned as illegal by the Government and the international community and the Special Rapporteur supports that opinion. Reports suggest that many pro-unity supporters boycotted the action while pro-Russian supporters took part. The “referendums” lacked democratic legitimacy. They provided a distorted and unreliable account of public opinion and have served to further divide communities, increase tensions and destabilize the situation. 26. Some minority representatives emphasized their desire for greater political and cultural autonomy for some regions. Some representatives of Russian ethnicity maintained strongly nationalist feelings associated with their kin-State and historical claims over certain territories. Those who proclaimed a “People’s Republic” in Donetsk and held “referendums” on the status of those regions stated their objective as separation from Ukraine. Regrettably, some have sought to achieve that by force. 27. The Special Rapporteur considers it important to monitor and robustly address any hate speech and incitement to violence that may fuel tensions, particularly in the context of the current crisis. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Human Rights Assessment Mission in Ukraine found that “instances of hate speech towards ethnic and religious groups have been widespread” including in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It stated that “pro-Maidan activists have often been labelled ‘banderovtsy’, ‘Nazisʼ and ‘fascistsʼ. Supporting the territorial integrity and unity of Ukraine has been depicted as a sign of intolerance and nationalism”.15 The Mission report noted indications of growing anti-Tatar sentiment in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The Special Rapporteur concurs with the assessment of the Mission that there has been a trend that has seen political orientation conflated with ethnic background in eastern and southern Ukraine, where Ukrainian identity and symbols have been targeted for hate speech. Equally, any anti-Russian sentiments must be closely monitored. 28. The Special Rapporteur received reports stating that some Russian language media sources in Donetsk Oblast (region) and Ukrainian language media in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea have faced closure or broadcasting restrictions. The violent takeover of some broadcast media was reported in some localities under pro-Russian control.16 15 16 See www.osce.org/odihr/118476?download=true. The June 2014 OHCHR report on the human rights situation in Ukraine states that “according to NGOs, freedom of media in the Donetsk region is severely curtailed, with Ukrainian TV channels switched off by the ‘Donetsk People’s Republicʼ and replaced by its own media programmes and Russian TV” (para. 232). Available from www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/HRMMUReport15June2014.pdf. 9