A/HRC/7/19/Add.3 page 13 45. Most authorities saw the large number of non-citizens not as evidence of discrimination, but rather as the outcome of large-scale historical processes; instead of dispute between ethnic groups, it is believed to be a reflection of international political tensions projected onto ethnic issues. In spite of these deep-rooted problems, the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors also pointed out that a number of actions have been taken to facilitate the process of naturalization for non-citizens, particularly the simplification of citizenship exams. Furthermore, it was emphasized that non-citizens enjoy virtually the same rights as citizens, except for some political rights and the possibility of being employed in the civil service. However, many interlocutors recognized that the high number of non-citizens is a problem that needs long-term solutions, whilst pointing out that a complete reversal of Latvia’s citizenship policy would pose a threat to the present status of Latvians, who could become a minority in their own country. 46. The Minister of Foreign Affairs also focused on the need to bridge the gap in the interpretation of history between ethnic groups, particularly regarding symbolic events such as the Second World War, collaboration with the Nazis and the meaning of the Soviet occupation. This gulf in the reading of the past has been an important source of problems for inter-community relations not only in Latvia, but also in the other Baltic States. A particularly important problem expressed by the Minister, as well as other authorities, is that some groups have instrumentalized history in order to question the legitimacy of Latvia as an independent State, which has made most of the population question the loyalty of these groups to the Latvian State. The Minister also emphasized the importance of the intellectual debate on this issue, to which he contributed an important scholarly work.5 47. Apart from the issues related to citizenship and integration of the Russian-speaking minorities, the Special Rapporteur also asked his interlocutors for their views on the mounting racist violence that is seen in Latvia, as in other countries, including the problem of groups that instrumentalize the principle of freedom of expression to incite racial, ethnic and religious hatred. 48. Officials at the Ministry of Justice emphasized that the qualification of racially motivated crimes is the function of public prosecutors and the police, arguing that any intervention by the Ministry would be seen as interference with the independence of justice. Officers of the State police assured the Special Rapporteur that it had been putting a major focus on racially motivated crimes, not only in terms of prevention but also when investigations need to be carried out. However, they noted that there are difficulties in concretely establishing the racist motivation for crimes, which in many cases did not allow for such a qualification. Police officials acknowledged that hate speech is a current problem in Latvia, reaching a peak in 2005, but noted that these are instances of young extremists trying to affect public opinion rather than a structural problem in the country. 49. The President of the Constitutional Court argued that there is an important gap in the existing legal framework, in terms of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, particularly 5 Artis Pabriks, Occupational Representation and Ethnic Discrimination in Latvia (Riga, The Soros Foundation, 2002).