community, especially if such acts go unpunished. Where violent attacks against defenders do take place, they should be vigorously prosecuted.162 The Swedish ombudsman against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, noting that his office receives information on a regular basis of violence and other types of harassment against LGBT activists by private individuals, suggests that hatecrime legislation be used against alleged perpetrators of such attacks. The ombudsman pointed out that such incidents generally receive due attention from the police and the judicial system (although there have been exceptions in the past), and that existing provisions on homophobic motives as an aggravating circumstance are regularly taken into account by the courts in sentencing those convicted of such crimes.163 Germany: Example of the Use of Criminal Law to Protect Defenders164 Threatening to commit a serious criminal offence (e.g., to cause serious bodily harm or to commit murder) is itself a criminal offence in Germany, and law-enforcement authorities investigate such threats. Germany vigorously prosecutes criminal offences against human rights defenders, and those accused of committing a crime must answer charges in a criminal court. In Germany, the victims of violent offences have special rights in criminal proceedings. Where the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz) identifies activities by foreign intelligence services in Germany that indicate a specific threat to defenders of human rights who have sought refuge in Germany, that information is passed on to the relevant police. Speaking out in support of human rights defenders Another way to protect defenders is for public authorities, as well as concerned individuals and groups, to speak out in their support. Public statements by government officials set the tone of public discourse and can provide an example for the general public in support of a culture of human rights, including the work of defenders. A number of governments indicated to ODIHR that they have spoken out on the situation of defenders abroad.165 Some governments noted that they have used bilateral dialogue166 and diplomatic demarches167 as a means of speaking out on and for defenders. The EU presidency pointed to a number of specific examples of statements and declarations it had made on behalf of defenders,168 as did the government of Germany.169 162 “ Tenth Meeting of the Ministerial Council” , OSCE, Porto, 2002, Decision no. 6, Tolerance and non-Discrimination, para. 9: “ The Ministerial Council … [c]alls on relevant authorities of participating States to investigate promptly and impartially acts of violence, especially where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they were motivated by aggressive nationalism, racism, chauvinism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and violent extremism, as well as attacks motivated by hatred against a particular religion or belief, and to prosecute those responsible in accordance with domestic law and consistent with relevant international standards of human rights.” 163 Information provided by Sweden’ s ombudsman against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, 8 May 2008. 164 Germany’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 30 May 2008. 165 Information provided by the Slovenian EU presidency, 4 June 2008. 166 Germany’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 30 May 2008; Finland’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 1 June 2008. 167 Switzerland’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire , 23 May 2008; “ Ensuring Protection: European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders” , the Council of the European Union, 2004. 168 Information provided by the Slovenian EU presidency, 4 June 2008. 169 Germany’ s response to ODIHR’ s questionnaire, 30 May 2008. Ukraine’ s parliamentary ombudsman noted her intervention in a recent case in which a land-rights activist was physically attacked and injured. She personally investigated the case, raised it with the relevant authorities, and organized 37