A/HRC/25/69 reported by the public and recorded by the authorities; the number of convictions of offenders; the grounds on which these offences were found to be discriminatory; and the punishments served to offenders. At the practical level, it means putting instruments in place to encourage victims and witnesses to report incidents of hate crime, as well as mechanisms that would show that authorities are taking hate crime seriously. 59. Replying to the questions of the delegates from Ghana and the United States of America, Eva Sobotka noted that there was a survey in 2007, which collected data on people with different background, including people of African descent and of 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. This survey will be repeated in 2014. With regard to legal instruments, she said that in addition to the EU surveys, FRA considered United Nations and Council of Europe (CoE) standards and approaches to issues, which does not lead to any conflict, and provides continuity. She noted that FRA approaches discrimination against Roma as ethnic/racial discrimination and there can be also multiple forms of discrimination for example with regard to Roma women and children. Nationality is also taken into consideration, depending on the situation. 60. The delegate of Ghana expressed concerns regarding the treatment of African migrants in Europe, in particular mass deportation and expulsion of aliens and foreigners from European countries. He noted the need for respect for dignity of those who are deported, giving them reasonable time to collect personal items. He stated that in cases of mass deportation, court cases are considered on the basis of merit; however dignity and due process tended to be compromised in the administrative processes. He mentioned that people with pending cases before courts should not be deported; yet immigration officials exercised pressure on embassies rather than await the outcome of the court processes. 61. In her reply to the delegate of the Republic of South Africa, Ms. Sobotka stated that racist incidents have to be addressed more broadly as national human rights institutions (NHRIs) could not address the entire scope of such crimes. Improvements were required in police and prosecution services and NHRIs should raise awareness about hate crimes; however, it was the responsibility of the justice system to address these crimes. 62. In her reply to the questions of the Chairperson-Rapporteur, Ms. Sobotka noted that the difference between good and bad data was primarily linked to the data collector and standardization of the process. She highlighted the importance of prosecution, as it was not enough to solely register a hate crime. Proper training and procedures had an impact on the prosecution of hate crimes and the collection of data. With regard to victims-friendly mechanisms, she said that in the United Kingdom victims could report crimes online, avoiding the need to interact directly and attend the police station as the online submission is re-routed to the responsible police station. She stated that it was not possible, at this juncture to make a comparison of data collection as practices vary between Member States and within States. She added that sometimes victims could approach civil society organizations, ombudsman office or NHRIs, to assist with the filing of a complaint and follow up on their case. 63. With regard to the practice of racial profiling, Ms. Sobotka stated that there existed various studies, proving that the practice is counterproductive and that the cost and adverse effects are disproportionate to the results. She noted that police protocols for investigation of hate crimes have proved to be very useful and they are usually present in Member States with comprehensive data collection. On the issue of racism in football, she did not consider it a new phenomenon. According to her the new element was the increased expression of extremist views in parliaments and political discourses. 31