Besides political, data protection and privacy concerns, another reason for this lies in the fact that the definition of both minority communities, and group membership, is ambiguous and even arbitrary, and it requires an often controversial political commitment by the state to engage in such legislation. There are several options for definition and classification: one can rely on the self-declaration of the identity of persons concerned; can choose to follow the perception of outsiders, often the majority; can follow identification by the communities; or apply so called “objective criteria”, for which, among others, the following markers can be used: name, skin color, diet, clothing, citizenship, place of birth, country of origin, language, meaning mother tongue or language used, religion, parents’ origin, etc. We can see why states are unwilling to enter this conceptual and political minefield. However, experience shows that a misguided approach to data protection and the lack of proper legal definitions and classifications lead to the failure to prosecute racially motivated hate crimes. Here the phenomenon of underclassification happens, when these incidents are categorized as simple assault, homicide or vandalism. In this form of underpolicing, society fails to send the political and moral message to victimized minorities that it condemns such behavior as firmly and directly as possible. The lack of data collection also provides obstacles to monitor overpolicing, for example in regards to ethno-racial profiling and other potential forms of discrimination in the criminal justice system, such as disparities in sentencing, pretrial detention, etc.