Is hate crime an ascertainable crime?

Question

According to the OSCE's HATE CRIME LAWS: A PRACTICAL GUIDE:

In line with Ministerial Council Decision No. 9/09,12 hate crimes are criminal acts committed with a bias motive. It is the motive that makes hate crimes different from other crimes.

The document goes on to state:

Hate crimes always comprise two elements: a criminal offence committed with a bias motive.

The first element of hate crime is clear enough:

The first element of a hate crime is the criminal offence: the act must be an offence under ordinary criminal law.

But then it gets murky real fast with the second element:

The second element of a hate crime is the motivation: the criminal act must be committed with a particular motive, referred to in this Guide as ‘bias’. In order to qualify as such, hate crimes need to target one or more members of, or the property associated with, a group that shares a common characteristic. These are referred to as protected characteristics. A protected characteristic is a characteristic shared by a group, such as ‘race’, language, religion or belief, ethnicity, nationality, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity disability, or other common feature that is fundamental to their identity.

If that wasn't murky enough, then the ‘bias indicators’ which paradoxically ought to instill objective certainty and remove reasonable doubt, seem to do the opposite:

Bias motivation can be best identified through the use of ‘bias indicators’, i.e., “objective facts, circumstances, or patterns attending a criminal act(s), which, standing alone or in conjunction with other facts or circumstances, suggest that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by any form of bias.” The existence of bias indicators does not automatically prove that the criminal act was a hate crime, although some may be used in court as evidence. Bias indicators should be analysed and understood in their context and in relation to each other. The existence of bias indicators should prompt investigators to ask the necessary follow-up questions, and investigate potential bias motivation further to enable and support a hate crime prosecution. In addition, investigators should record bias indicators in the case file, as with all evidence.

What this seems to suggest to me is that: for an act to qualify as a hate crime, it need not be proven that "hate" was the motive, but rather that a crime was committed and that bias was the motive.

This is what I don't understand, how is bias as motive (reason) not intention (willingness) ascertainable for hate crime to be deemed a crime especially when the ‘bias indicators’ themselves does not automatically prove that the criminal act was a hate crime?

EDITS:

• OSCE stands for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. With 57 States from Europe, Central Asia and North America – the world’s largest regional security organization.
• The alleged duplicate How do you prove a fact at issue in litigation? deals with intentionality of an actus reus (e.g., R. v. Docherty, [1989] 2 SCR 941), but am interested in whether motive, can in of itself serve as a criterion ascertaining that bias—using ‘bias indicators’ or not—is the sine qua non, for an act to be deemed a type of crime, here referred to as hate crime.

Answer 1

What is called a "hate crime" is basically a sentence enhancer for one or more existing crimes.

Sentence enhancers are common throughout the criminal law.

For example, a greater sentence is often imposed if you are carrying a firearm, or have a prior criminal record, or are trespassing with an intent to commit another crime while trespassing (basically, that's called burglary).

Carrying out certain crimes while motivated by bias against a certain group of people turns an ordinary crime into a hate crime which justifies a longer sentence than would otherwise be imposed for the crime, that are demonstrated by something that the person committing the crime did (or the context of the crime committed) that allows a third-party to ascertain that motive.

Ultimately, a jury (or a judge or panel of judges in a bench trial, as the case may be) decides if the facts are sufficient to prove the presence of the hate crime enhancing motivation beyond a reasonable doubt, when considering all of the facts and circumstances presented at trial.

It isn't obvious why this is difficult to understand. The question seems to try to make a distinction between motive and intention, but it really isn't clear what the question asker is trying to get at.

UPDATE

An update to the question states:

am interested in whether motive, can in of itself serve as a criterion ascertaining that bias—using ‘bias indicators’ or not—is the sine qua non, for an act to be deemed a type of crime, here referred to as hate crime.

Motive can, in and of itself, serve as a criterion for determining whether an act is deemed to be a type of crime. Indeed, motive is routinely the case that motive is used for this purpose. I would guess that maybe one in four, or one in five crimes have motive as one of the elements that must be proved to determine if an act that would otherwise not constitute a crime of a particular type is a crime.

Indeed, unlike hate crimes, there are many acts that would otherwise not be crimes at all which are crimes is the motive specified in the statutory definition of the crime is present.

It is not at all obvious why anyone would ever think that it can't be.