### Addressing Discrimination and Violence

#Discrimination in Public Events
In cases involving discrimination, such as those concerning LGBT public events in Russia, the Court found that the authorities' refusal to approve the dates and venues of such events and the lack of effective judicial remedies constituted a violation of Article 11, Article 13, and Article 14 of the Convention (227_13, 227_14, 227_21, 227_22). The Court emphasized the importance of sending clear messages against violence, hate speech, and discrimination, particularly towards vulnerable groups like the LGBT community (248_25, 248_27, 248_38).

#Promoting Tolerance
Authorities are encouraged to send clear messages against violence and discrimination and to develop anti-discrimination legislation (340_73, 340_74). In cases where authorities did not take sufficient measures to protect demonstrators from violence, they failed to meet their positive obligations (340_100, 383_218, 383_220).

#Failure to Protect Against Hate-Motivated Attacks
The authorities were aware of the risks to the applicants associated with demonstrations in support of the LGBTI community but failed to take effective preventive measures to protect them against hate-motivated attacks by counter-demonstrators (402_73).

#Facilitation of Demonstrations
The authorities failed to duly facilitate the conduct of planned demonstrations by deterring homophobic verbal attacks and physical violence by counter-demonstrators. This failure was found to be a violation of the State’s positive obligations under Article 11, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (402_88).

#Police Inaction and Lack of Preliminary Measures
In the Berkman case, the police did not react when counter-demonstrators equipped with whips appeared and obstructed the meeting. The passive conduct of the police officers, lack of preliminary measures, and subsequent arrests on account of alleged administrative offenses demonstrated a failure to facilitate the meeting (426_50, 426_51, 426_52, 426_53, 426_54, 426_55, 426_56).

#Failure to Assess and Respond to Risks
The authorities failed to correctly assess the risk incurred by the individual applicants at the hands of intruders and to respond adequately to protect the applicants' dignity against homophobic attacks by a third party (436_113).

#Obligation to Investigate
The authorities did not take reasonable steps to investigate whether verbal abuse had been motivated by homophobia. The necessity of conducting a meaningful inquiry into the possibility that discriminatory motives had lain behind the abuse was absolute, given the hostility against the LGBT community and the evidence of homophobic slurs (436_123).

#Containment of Counter-Demonstrators
The domestic authorities failed to ensure that an event organized by the applicant association could take place peacefully by sufficiently containing homophobic counter-demonstrators. This failure was a breach of their positive obligations under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 11 (436_146).