A/HRC/41/45/Add.1 44. At the judicial level, there seems to be a different pattern altogether. All the representatives the Independent Expert met during his visit explained that the hate motive included in article 531 had never been applied by judges when sentencing and that consequently there was no jurisprudence concerning aggravating circumstances in homophobic or transphobic crimes. While the Supreme Court, for example, explained that this might be due to a lack of prosecutorial information, the Independent Expert nevertheless concludes that transphobic crimes are at times rendered invisible by a lack of proper identification of the victim. The fact that trans women are as a rule registered with sole reference to the gender marker in their official identity documents leads to most of them being registered as men, literally erasing the problematic that they face. 45. For these reasons, the Independent Expert concurs with the findings of the Public Defender’s Office that the current strategy for tackling hate-motivated violence fails to address the systemic nature of the problem. Root causes must be visible before they can be addressed. To date, despite a marked improvement in data collection, major gaps remain, especially with regard to the accuracy of data and inconsistencies in the methodology for its collection. Stigma associated with sexual orientation and gender identity creates a vicious cycle in which all persons and State agents involved in a situation consider, at best, that it is in the best interest of the victim to conceal the true cause of violence and, at worst, that the violence is justified. None of these extremes is conducive to proper notice, investigation and registration of crimes motivated by prejudice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans and gender diverse persons. 46. In this context, the Independent Expert welcomes the implementation of several projects under the auspices of the Council of Europe, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and OHCHR that seek to combine legislative, capacitybuilding and awareness-raising actions to ensure appreciation for diversity in Georgia and the possibility for everyone to enjoy their rights freely, with a particular emphasis on the design of data gathering and management systems. 3. Deprivation of liberty 47. All available studies and reports confirm that persons with diverse sexual orientations or gender identities in detention are extremely vulnerable. A system of social ostracization has been put in place in some men’s prisons whereby inmates perceived as having diverse sexual orientations are separated from the rest of the prison population and enrolled in the most menial work, such as cleaning services. These outcasts are subjected to mockery and offensive language from other detainees and sometimes even from administrative personnel. According to the tacit rules of this system, any other detainee who touches, speaks to or simply acknowledges the existence of those perceived to be gay – referred to as “roosters” – is automatically associated with them and ostracized as well. According to the Public Defender’s Office, this ostracization results in such prisoners being less involved in rehabilitation or other activities implemented in penitentiary establishments.28 Furthermore, the Independent Expert was informed that these inmates are also victims of sexual violence. To protect themselves while in detention, most would identify as heterosexuals. 48. The administration explains that such separation is carried out for security reasons. For the same reason, prison authorities sometimes place persons perceived to be gay in closed sections, allegedly for their own safety, although they should be placed in semi-open detention. 49. The current obstacles to legal gender recognition and the rigid interpretation of gender by the judiciary may lead to situations where a trans woman is sent to a men’s facility, and vice versa, with all the risks associated with such a practice. This is another illustration of the urgent need to eliminate abusive requirements as prerequisites for changing gender markers in identity documents, as highlighted below. 28 10 Public Defender’s Office, Human Rights Situation in Closed Institutions, 2016, pp. 174–177; and additional, confidential input submitted by the Public Defender’s Office during the mission.