37/29 Intersessional seminar on cultural rights and the protection of cultural heritage - Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

GE.17-23425(E)



Human Rights Council Thirty-seventh session

26 February-23 March 2018

Agenda items 2 and 3

Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the

High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil

political, economic, social and cultural rights,

including the right to development

Intersessional seminar on cultural rights and the protection of cultural heritage

Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

United Nations A/HRC/37/29

Contents

Page

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

II. Opening statements ....................................................................................................................... 3

III. Existing protection mechanisms and recent developments ........................................................... 5

A. Statements by panellists ........................................................................................................ 5

B. Summary of discussions and inputs received ....................................................................... 6

C. National experiences ............................................................................................................. 7

IV. Conditions for meaningful engagement of rights holders ............................................................. 8

A. Statements by panellists ........................................................................................................ 8

B. Summary of discussions and inputs received ....................................................................... 9

C. National experiences ............................................................................................................. 10

V. Issues needing further attention ..................................................................................................... 10

A. Statements by panellists ........................................................................................................ 10

B. Summary of discussions and inputs received ....................................................................... 12

C. National experiences ............................................................................................................. 13

VI. Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................... 13

A. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 13

B. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 14

I. Introduction

1. In its resolution 33/20, the Human Rights Council requested the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene a one-day intersessional seminar on

ways to prevent, contain and/or mitigate the detrimental impact of the damage to or

destruction of cultural heritage on the enjoyment of human rights, including cultural rights,

by all and on best practices in this regard. On 7 July 2017, the Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) convened an intersessional seminar on

cultural rights and the protection of cultural heritage.1 The seminar was preceded by an

expert meeting held in Geneva on 6 July.

2. The seminar was designed to build on the recommendations already available in

three reports issued by the Human Rights Council mandate in the field of cultural rights

(A/HRC/17/38, A/HRC/31/59 and Corr.1 and A/71/317), the relevant study of the Expert

Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/HRC/30/53), Council resolution 33/20

and Security Council resolutions 2199 (2015) and 2347 (2017), and to discuss concrete

actions that should be taken towards their implementation.

3. The panel discussion was moderated by Sneška Quaedvlieg-Mihailovic, of Europa

Nostra. Opening statements were made by Peggy Hicks, OHCHR; Anna Korka, Permanent

Representative of Greece to the United Nations Office at Geneva; and Karima Bennoune,

Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights. The panellists were Ms. Bennoune;

Giovanni Boccardi, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO); Patty Gerstenblith, De Paul University College of Law (United States of

America); Christiane Johannot-Gradis, Traditions pour demain; Omara Khan Masoudi,

former Director of the National Museum of Afghanistan; Mikel Mancisidor, Committee on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Peter Stone, UK Committee of the Blue Shield

(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); Rita Izsak-Ndiaye, former Special

Rapporteur on minority issues; Daouda Keita, Université des sciences sociales et de

gestion, Bamako; and Tui Shortland, Te Kopu, Pacific Indigenous and Local Knowledge

Centre of Distinction (New Zealand).

4. The present summary was prepared by OHCHR pursuant to paragraph 14 of Council

resolution 33/20.

II. Opening statements

5. In her opening statement, Ms. Hicks noted that the work of cultural rights defenders

was the glue binding our ancestors and our children. In recalling the work of the Special

Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, she noted the significance of cultural heritage as a

resource for the identity and development of individuals and groups, and the negative

impact that its destruction had on several human rights and on people’s capacity for

resilience and peace.

6. Ms. Hicks underscored that respecting, protecting and realizing human rights,

especially cultural rights, was the best and most sustainable way to protect and preserve

cultural heritage. She stressed that earlier generations had entrusted us with their cultural

heritage, and we had to ensure that it was transmitted to future generations. Cultural rights

could and should guide us in that endeavour.

7. Ms. Korka took the floor on behalf of the core group of States that had sponsored

Council resolution 33/20. She noted that destruction of cultural heritage was not a new

phenomenon, but that terrorism, war and upheaval in various parts of the globe had caused

a marked increase in the number and frequency of those incidents.

8. Ms. Korka recalled that in adopting resolution 33/20, the Council unconditionally

condemned such destruction and expressed deep concern at the organized looting, theft,

1 See www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/ESCR/Pages/CulturalRightsProtectionCulturalHeritage.aspx.

smuggling and illicit trafficking in cultural property. It invited States to adopt effective

strategies to prevent destruction and to implement the recommendations in the relevant

reports of the Special Rapporteur; underlined the important role that the Council could play

in global efforts to protect cultural heritage; and called for the protection of cultural rights

defenders. She underscored that a holistic approach was crucial in that respect; particularly

a human rights perspective, which had been overlooked so far.

9. Ms. Bennoune noted with great concern the difficulties frontline cultural heritage

experts faced in obtaining visas to participate in international events, as shown by the fact

that Mr. Masoudi, former Director of the National Museum of Afghanistan, could not travel

to attend the seminar. She thanked the core group for its leadership in the adoption of

resolution 33/20 and urged it to continue pressing for its full implementation.

10. She recalled the efforts made by Mr. Masoudi and his colleagues to protect the

museum’s objects from armed groups in the 1990s and 2000s. She encouraged the

international community to show as much courage and commitment as those and other

frontline heritage defenders around the world had, and called on the relevant authorities to

ensure that they had the safety, resources and visas they needed to perform their work.

11. Ms. Bennoune recalled the numerous testimonies she had received of the suffering

caused by the destruction of cultural heritage, such as the destruction of the al-Hadba

minaret in Mosul, Iraq, a few days before the seminar, demonstrating that it was no mere

theoretical construct to say that intentional destruction of cultural heritage was a violation

of human rights; it was the lived reality for many people around the world.

12. She underscored that the right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage

formed part of the right to take part in cultural life, and recalled that cultural rights were at

the core of human identity and enablers for many other civil, economic, political and social

rights.

13. Ms. Bennoune emphasized the need for a human rights approach to the protection of

cultural heritage and outlined priorities identified during the preparatory expert meeting,

including: (a) mainstreaming of a human rights approach to cultural heritage across the

United Nations system, regional bodies and relevant national bodies, including military

forces; (b) adopting a holistic approach which encompassed all regions, brought together

tangible and intangible cultural heritage, focused on prevention, education and

accountability and targeted acts committed by State and non-State actors, in conflict and

non-conflict situations; and (c) ensuring consultation with relevant stakeholders at local,

national, regional and international levels concerning the meanings, interpretations and uses

of heritage, as well as its protection, preservation, reconstruction, memorialization and

nomination to the UNESCO World Heritage List.

14. She further called for a fully gender-sensitive approach to the protection of cultural

heritage that included women cultural heritage experts in relevant forums and addressed

women’s challenges in accessing cultural heritage.

15. Ms. Bennoune committed to developing an implementation checklist setting

concrete targets for States and civil society for the protection and enjoyment of cultural

heritage. She provided a set of recommendations concerning ratification of relevant

instruments, resource allocation, visa procedures and responses to extremist ideologies,

which are reflected in section VI below.

Video projection

16. A seven-minute video was screened of Plácido Domingo, President of Europa

Nostra and UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador, in which he calls cultural heritage — tangible

and intangible — “our anchor in time”. Cultural heritage tells the closely interconnected

stories of who we were in the past, who we are today and who we could become in the

future. Intentional destruction of cultural heritage seeks to erase the record of human

creation and our collective memory as human beings. Such deplorable acts must be firmly

condemned and, eventually, stopped.

17. In the video, Mr. Domingo said that he had been deeply moved by the heroic stories

of those cultural heritage defenders who had taken the greatest risks to protect their cultural

heritage, sometimes even at the cost of their lives. He stressed that our best tribute to them

would be to support their work and stand with the heritage heroes of today.

18. He underscored that it was our human right to protect and preserve cultural heritage;

to access it, enjoy it and transmit it to future generations. Those rights could not be taken

for granted and required our collective, vigorous defence. He endorsed the work of the

Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights.

III. Existing protection mechanisms and recent developments

A. Statements by panellists

19. Mr. Boccardi noted that cultural rights were enablers for every other right and

ultimately for peace, security and sustainable development. Conflict would persist unless

those rights were addressed, protected and realized.

20. He stressed that in the last 15 years the work of UNESCO had placed more emphasis

on the human dimension of culture and on its instrumental role in guaranteeing peace and

sustainable development. That had led to the adoption of the Convention for the

Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003; the Policy for the Integration of a

Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World Heritage Convention

in 2015; and the Strategy and Action Plan for the Reinforcement of Action for the

Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed

Conflict, also in 2015.

21. The Action Plan contained several elements required for the protection of cultural

heritage, including from a human rights perspective, such as: (a) preparedness in times of

peace, including by documenting cultural heritage; (b) strengthening of national

institutional, legal and judicial frameworks; (c) adopting measures to strengthen resilience;

(d) strengthening capacity-building in the cultural heritage sector and integrating culture

and heritage within humanitarian, security and peacebuilding operations so that cultural

rights were considered in conflict prevention and recovery processes; and (e)

mainstreaming cultural rights and cultural diversity into education.

22. Mr. Boccardi appealed to the Human Rights Council to ensure continued work on

resolution 33/20 and to support the UNESCO Strategy and Action Plan. He proposed

working collaboratively with the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights on a

manual for the application of a cultural rights approach to humanitarian, security and

peacebuilding operations, as well as a human rights approach to heritage conservation. He

encouraged UNESCO and the Council to support that endeavour.

23. Ms. Gerstenblith noted that the destruction of cultural heritage could be seen as a

security issue as well as a heritage and humanitarian concern. The destruction of cultural

heritage, alongside the suppression of other cultural rights, was an indicator — often an

early warning — of genocide and human rights abuses.

24. With regard to legal developments, Ms. Gerstenblith welcomed recent Security

Council resolutions calling for the preservation of cultural heritage in the Syrian Arab

Republic, Iraq and Mali2 and increased ratification and implementation of international

humanitarian law instruments that protected cultural property and cultural heritage during

armed conflict, such as the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property

in the event of Armed Conflict and its two Protocols.

25. She also recalled the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and

Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and

welcomed the legislation adopted in Germany in 2016 broadening the application of the

2 Resolutions 2347 (2017), 2359 (2017), 2295 (2016), 2199 (2015) and 2100 (2013).

Convention to illegal exports from all countries that had ratified it rather than to specific

objects or conflict zones. She encouraged States to follow that example and ensure that they

did not become markets for illegally removed cultural materials.

26. Ms. Gerstenblith further recognized the recent landmark prosecution at the

International Criminal Court of Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi for the destruction of shrines and

monuments in Timbuktu, Mali. She hoped to see more prosecutions for intentional

destruction and for destruction that resulted from extreme negligence or wilful disregard of

cultural heritage protection imperatives.

27. Ms. Johannot-Gradis focused her presentation on the damages inflicted on cultural

heritage, and particularly on intangible heritage, in armed conflict. That heritage

encompassed cultural expressions, beliefs, know-how, traditional knowledge, etc. She

noted that often, cultural heritage destruction resulting from war had devastating impacts on

both its tangible and intangible dimensions, although harm to the latter was less visible. For

example, alongside the destruction of the Timbuktu mausoleums, the local populations’

intangible heritage was also gravely harmed. The rituals and ceremonies that had always

been held around the mausoleums were banned during the conflict and had ceased to exist.

28. Ms. Johannot-Gradis recalled that no international humanitarian law norms

specifically preserved intangible heritage; however, many of them did so indirectly by

protecting life, physical integrity, dignity, non-discrimination, religious practices and other

fundamental human rights. The International Court of Justice had several times ruled that

human rights norms remained primarily applicable in armed conflict when it offered more

precise protection in a given situation than international humanitarian law. Cultural rights,

particularly the right to participate in and have access to cultural life and heritage, were

crucial for the protection of intangible cultural heritage in armed conflict.

29. She stressed that no norms of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible

Cultural Heritage formally prescribed its application in armed conflict; however, the

Intergovernmental Committee established under the Convention had adopted the principle

of the applicability of the Convention in armed conflict, and had recently decided that

operational modalities for the implementation of the principles of the Convention in case of

emergencies, including armed conflicts, must be explored.

30. Ms. Johannot-Gradis stressed that the low level of ratification of relevant treaties

was a major obstacle to the protection of cultural heritage in wartime, as was their weak

implementation due to insufficient preventive measures before (military training), during

(operational protection measures) and after war (accountability and reparation

mechanisms).

B. Summary of discussions and inputs received

31. During the interactive discussion, representatives of the following States took the

floor: Azerbaijan, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Serbia, Switzerland and

Russian Federation. Representatives of the following organizations made statements:

Advisory Body Initiative to the World Heritage Convention, National Human Rights

Council of Morocco, Observatory for Diversity and Cultural Rights, RASHID International

and Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage in Cyprus. A staff member of the OHCHR

Minority Fellowship Programme spoke. Written inputs were also received from States and

civil society.

32. Several participants underscored the importance of resolution 33/20 in introducing a

human rights-based approach to the protection of cultural heritage, and thanked Ms.

Bennoune for her 2016 report in which she proposed recommendations for the adoption of

such an approach.

33. One participant underscored that culture was an essential source of sustainability of

diverse groups and was particularly vulnerable during and after armed conflicts or terrorist

attacks. The aim of intentional and systematic destruction of cultural heritage was often to

undermine specific cultural identities, which could sometimes be qualified as “cultural

cleansing”. Another participant noted that the destruction of cultural heritage unveiled a

hierarchization of cultures; therefore, its protection served to affirm the universality of

culture.

34. A participant noted that intangible cultural heritage and its practitioners could be

targeted during hostilities, in particular in cases of religious, ethnic or cultural conflicts.

That heritage could also be destroyed or disappear unintentionally, for instance when its

custodians had to flee war or could not participate in its manifestation due to circumstances

related to the conflict, or when the persons or means enabling its transmission were

missing, such as when children were separated from their parents or could not attend school

to receive an education respectful of their culture.

35. Several participants stressed the need for stronger condemnation of and better

responses to the intentional destruction of cultural heritage. The international community

must focus its efforts on ending destruction of cultural heritage by terrorists. Recalling that

trade in cultural heritage was thought to be one of the funding sources for terrorist

operations, they welcomed the adoption of international instruments to combat the

financing of terrorism, but noted that further efforts were needed.

36. Representatives noted that the restoration of damaged world cultural treasures could

not be regarded as the sole responsibility of individual States, which often did not have the

capacity to undertake such tasks. As stressed in resolution 33/20, affected States needed

international assistance to protect and recover their cultural heritage.

37. The author of a written submission stressed that the best way to protect

archaeological sites and objects was to document and record them. Inventories of heritage

sites formed the basis for legislative protection and prosecutions, and local populations

must be actively involved in their elaboration.

38. Regarding the need to increase ratifications of the relevant treaties, participants

urged States parties to the relevant treaties to make use of the universal periodic review to

encourage other States to ratify them.

39. Participants underscored the need to formalize a human rights approach to the

preservation of cultural heritage that also included positive outcomes in terms of economic

development, education, literacy and minority involvement in decision-making. They also

emphasized the need for stronger linkages between the heritage and human rights fields.

40. The representative of the Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage in Cyprus noted

the need to develop a model for the safeguarding of cultural heritage that not only focused

on protection from war and conflict, but also from prejudices against minority groups and

from inadequate public policies that disregarded the positive role that cultural heritage

could play in sustainable development.

C. National experiences

41. The representative of Italy said that, in its international cooperation, the Government

supported the inclusion of commitments aimed at protecting cultural heritage in the

mandate of peace operations, promoted the training of peacekeepers and prioritized the

protection of cultural heritage.

42. The representative of France noted that the International Alliance for the Protection

of Cultural Heritage in Conflict Areas, launched in April 2017, focused on protecting

tangible cultural heritage through shelters, but acknowledged that there was a continuum

linking tangible and intangible heritage.

43. The representative of Israel said the imperative of preserving the cultural heritage

sites of all religions and cultures was enshrined in its national legislation and in the work of

relevant national institutions.

44. The representative of Egypt pointed out that the 2014 Constitution mandated the

State to preserve the country’s heritage and to entrench the principle of diversity and

protection of tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Egypt had been the subject of many

terror attacks on cultural sites, such as the attack on the Islamic Museum in 2014 and the

destruction of one of Egypt’s most historic churches in 2017.

45. The representative of Ethiopia explained that the country had nine tangible and three

intangible cultural heritage sites listed in the UNESCO heritage lists. Ethiopia had been a

victim of plundering and looting of its heritage. A greater danger was the deliberate

destruction of heritage as part of the deculturalization process used by terrorist groups.

46. The representative of Iraq recalled that the country had been the subject of terrorist

attacks that destroyed and pillaged historic sites, such as Jonah’s tomb, a number of

religious sites, churches, mosques and, more recently, the al-Nuri mosque and the al-Hadba

minaret. The representative of RASHID International welcomed the move by Iraq towards

acceding to the Second Protocol to The Hague Convention.

47. The representative of Cyprus noted the country’s rich tradition of intangible cultural

heritage. In implementing the 2003 UNESCO Convention, the Government had adopted the

following measures: (a) compiling and publishing a first register of heritage elements in the

Cyprus Research Centre’s Oral Tradition Archive; (b) updating annually the National

Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage, with the involvement of concerned populations;

(c) launching a funding scheme to support activities to safeguard elements in the National

Inventory; (d) providing training to community members on the identification of their

intangible cultural heritage and the elaboration of safeguarding measures; and (e)

collaborating with other countries on the identification of common heritage elements for

nomination to the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of

Humanity.

48. The representative of the National Human Rights Council of Morocco said that the

Council had drawn the attention of the national authorities to the destruction of prehistoric

and proto-historic sites, in particular engravings in the southern provinces, by construction

and road work companies. The Council had also underscored the risk of destruction of

intangible cultural heritage by discriminatory policies that ran counter to the history of

countries and their cultures. A representative of civil society mentioned that an indigenous

language, Tamazight, was being destroyed by fundamentalism.

IV. Conditions for meaningful engagement of rights holders

A. Statements by panellists

49. Mr. Mancisidor stressed that the destruction of cultural heritage was a human rights

violation, not merely the destruction of stones. He recalled general comment No. 21 (2009)

on the right of everyone to take part in cultural life of the Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights. Participation was part of the normative content of the right enshrined

in article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. He

noted that participation meant to act in freedom, to have the ability to access heritage, but

also to construct, modify and interact with heritage.

50. Mr. Mancisidor noted that the more a community felt that heritage was useful for its

life, identity and living conditions, the more willing it would be to protect it. In post-

conflict reconstruction, heritage must provide an opportunity to create, recreate and

reconstruct society and its identity, and to provide opportunities for employment and human

development. Article 15 of the Covenant referred to heritage that must be useful for human

development.

51. He explained that those issues had been discussed with State delegations appearing

before the Committee and recommended that they be regularly addressed in the work of the

Human Rights Council, especially the universal periodic review, with a focus on protection,

participation, international cooperation, access, freedom, and the security of persons

working on heritage. Those elements constituted the normative content of the right to

participate in cultural life and were not merely political aspirations; therefore, they could,

and should, be addressed at the universal period review.

52. In a video message, Mr. Masoudi explained that the staff at the National Museum of

Afghanistan had transported 30,000 artefacts to safe areas when Kabul was affected by civil

war in the late 1980s. That act had saved the precious artefacts, including Bactrian

treasures.

53. He urged States to cooperate and facilitate the work of museum professionals, so

that they could ensure the transfer of cultural heritage to future generations. Mr. Masoudi

stressed that destruction of the cultural heritage was a crime, and noted that a nation stayed

alive when its culture and history stayed alive.

54. Mr. Stone recalled the unbreakable link between people and their tangible and

intangible heritage. Cultural heritage did not speak for itself; it needed to be interpreted and

used by people to come alive.

55. He reported that the Blue Shield had brought heritage experts and military forces

together to protect cultural heritage during armed conflict and following natural disasters.

The Blue Shield approach set out the four time periods in which heritage experts needed to

work alongside military forces: in the long term; immediately before a conflict; during a

conflict; and in the post-conflict or stabilization phase. The approach identified seven risks

to cultural heritage resulting from armed conflict: lack of planning; spoils of war; military

lack of awareness about heritage; collateral damage; looting; enforced neglect; and specific

targeting. By mitigating each of the seven the overall risk to that heritage could be lowered.

56. Mr. Stone provided a set of recommendations for the protection of cultural heritage

that addressed ratification of relevant instruments, a human rights-based approach, granting

visas to cultural heritage defenders, education, illicit trade, economic sustainability and the

mandate of armed forces, which are reflected in section VI.

B. Summary of discussions and inputs received

57. During the interactive discussion, representatives of Azerbaijan, Armenia and the

Plurinational State of Bolivia took the floor, along with representatives of the following

organizations: Dayr Mar Elian Archaeological Project in the Syrian Arab Republic,

Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage in Cyprus

and Turquoise Mountain. Written inputs were also received from States and civil society.

58. Participants noted that the safeguarding of tangible and intangible heritage was

essential to lasting peace and sustainable development. They stressed the importance of

integrating a human rights-based approach to the preservation of cultural heritage and the

need to develop a clear plan of action on how to protect and preserve cultural heritage.

59. Some participants underscored that it was crucial to create conditions for the

meaningful engagement of rights holders in protecting cultural heritage and ensuring

accountability for its destruction. They underscored that the greater challenge was to

preserve the conditions that enabled the creation of cultural goods and practices, such as the

enjoyment of cultural rights and the rights to health, education, security and sustainable

socioeconomic development, rather than the cultural goods and practices themselves.

60. It was also pointed out that the protection, preservation and restoration of cultural

heritage could be effective if sites were planned to be of benefit for local populations

through direct participatory mechanisms. Sites could become sources of income and

contribute to poverty alleviation and employment generation. The representative of the

Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage in Cyprus also noted the linkage between

cultural heritage and economic incentives. Unless cultural heritage was an integral part of

economic development, ratification of international law instruments alone would not

suffice. Ms. Quaedvlieg-Mihailovic underscored the need to apply a holistic approach to

measuring the value of cultural heritage; that value could not be only economic, but was

also environmental, social and cultural.

61. Kristen A. Carpenter, member of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples, in a written submission underscored that indigenous peoples’ oral, visual, and

other representations were not usually protected by national or international laws and thus

were vulnerable to exploitation by others. Many Governments allowed private

developments on indigenous lands without the consent of the peoples concerned. Land

dispossession, eviction and natural resource exploitation often threatened indigenous

cultural practices. She called on States to harmonize domestic law and practice with the

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Ms. Carpenter also

condemned the extraction and transfer of indigenous peoples’ human remains and religious

objects to institutions in other parts of the world.

62. The author of a written submission noted that for development to be undertaken in

an environmentally and culturally sustainable way and without posing a threat to cultural

heritage, planning processes must be informed and controlled through appropriate

legislation and through transparent and public assignment of the roles and responsibilities

of all stakeholders.

63. A participant recalled the work of the open-ended intergovernmental working group

on a draft United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in

rural areas, and pointed to a draft article on “cultural rights and traditional knowledge”.

Peasants and persons working in rural areas had the right to enjoy their culture and to

preserve, protect and develop their traditional knowledge as a way of life. Mr. Mancisidor

noted that the draft declaration could provide opportunities to advance the right to free,

prior and informed consent of peasants and indigenous peoples in the management of,

enjoyment of and participation in heritage.

C. National experiences

64. The representative of Armenia indicated that the destruction of cultural masterpieces

was an attempt to erase memory and destroy cultures and civilizations, and recalled the

destruction of the Mosul museum, the Bamiyan Buddha, the mausoleums of Timbuktu and

the thousands of medieval Armenian cross stones in Nakhijevan. Such manifestations of

intolerance and extremism should be strongly condemned and punished.

65. The representative of the Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage in Cyprus

reported that the Committee had been established to protect the cultural heritage that is

valued by both communities living in Cyprus. It provided a bicommunal platform for

cooperation and dialogue which defied the north-south divide. The Committee could be

seen as an emerging model of how two communities had come to appreciate their common

interest in their cultural heritage in a way that could inspire actors in areas where tensions

persisted.

66. The representative of RASHID International commended the Iraqi and other armed

forces active in Iraq for having consulted about heritage sites to be avoided as targets. It

encouraged Iraq’s efforts to re-establish a system of centrally paid site guards and to

establish a national Blue Shield committee. He urged the coordination of international

efforts to assist Iraq following the liberation of territory from Daesh to survey and digitally

document cultural heritage, collect evidence for possible prosecution and provide

conservation aid. The United Nations, including UNESCO and OHCHR, should lead those

efforts. He further stressed the need for a thorough review of school curricula in Iraq to

strengthen cross-cultural understanding and engagement, and urged the international

community to provide capacity-building and training.

67. In a written submission concerning the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, it was

noted that often monuments that appear to be “minor” in the eyes of outsiders acted as the

glue that kept a community together. The emotional and spiritual attachment to such sites,

especially for people forcibly displaced and wishing to return, had often been overlooked

when discussing the protection of cultural heritage. It was stressed that while the world

would rightly mourn the destruction of Palmyra, the destruction of countless other

monuments of great significance to Syrians must not be forgotten and must be included in

criminal charges.

V. Issues needing further attention

A. Statements by panellists

68. Ms. Izsak-Ndiaye spoke about the numerous occasions on which she and other

special procedure mandate holders had addressed attacks on religious and cultural sites of

minorities. She noted that the intentional destruction of cultural heritage could be aimed at

erasing evidence of the presence of minorities, and underscored that there was often little or

no accountability for the perpetrators of those crimes.

69. Ms. Izsak-Ndiaye recalled that the protection of minority groups went beyond the

duty not to destroy or deliberately weaken them; it also required respect for and protection

of their religious and cultural heritage.

70. She explained that in her regular discussions with authorities, she had been

concerned about the lack of national strategies for minority integration and how minority

cultures were rarely referred to as “part of our national heritage” or “our culture”. That

showed that minority cultures were often regarded as “alien” or “exotic”, which provided

impetus to those who saw a perceived national homogenous identity threatened by minority

cultures. Ms. Izsak-Ndiaye stressed that conscious efforts should be made to include

minorities’ viewpoints in historical narratives.

71. Because destruction of cultural heritage could be used as a strategy to destroy the

morale of the enemy, cultural heritage was considered in international humanitarian law as

requiring a special protection regime during conflict. Ms. Izsak-Ndiaye recalled the

judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in which the Tribunal

found that the destruction of cultural property with discriminatory intent against a cultural

community could be charged as a crime against humanity, and that the intentional

destruction of cultural and religious property and symbols could be considered as evidence

of intent to destroy a group within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

72. Ms. Izsak-Ndiaye provided a list of priorities for addressing the destruction of

cultural heritage: (a) analysing the motives underpinning those actions, because each of

them required a different response; (b) adopting preventive strategies to protect heritage

sites, with the involvement of local communities; and (c) adopting accountability and

reconciliation measures.

73. Ms. Shortland explained that the Pacific Indigenous and Local Knowledge Centre of

Distinction had raised the visibility of the challenges faced by local populations, including

the impact of natural disasters and climate change, in safeguarding their cultural heritage.

She noted the expertise possessed by indigenous peoples’ organizations on those issues and

the extensive work they had performed in international forums. Those organizations also

provided capacity-building to affected groups to find justice and reconciliation, and had

raised their concerns at the United Nations.

74. Ms. Shortland noted the need to elevate the role of indigenous peoples in cultural

heritage decision-making and recalled that there should be “no decision about us without

us”. She further underscored the need to facilitate the engagement of indigenous peoples

and local communities in the international debates on cultural heritage protection. She

raised in particular the need to address the situation of Pacific climate migrants who had

been forced to leave their heritage places and establish elsewhere, and called on States to

mobilize resources to support indigenous peoples’ organizations.

75. Mr. Keita noted that the phenomena of looting and illicit trade of cultural heritage in

Mali, although pre-existing, had worsened with the jihadist occupation in 2012 and the

resulting absence of the State. That had led to the destruction of mausoleums in the city of

Timbuktu, which were places of pilgrimage that had brought the community together, and

affected tangible and intangible heritage. Due to the lack of preventive measures, those

phenomena now affected the entire country.

76. Mr. Keita pointed to challenges in the preservation of cultural heritage in Mali such

as the mismatch between customary rules and the law governing heritage, and the lack of

interest of young people in traditional crafts. He recommended the creation of vocational

training to promote traditional skills and crafts, and urged an accommodation between

customary rules and national laws to assist in the protection and conservation of cultural

heritage.

77. Mr. Keita said that local populations were the true holders of cultural heritage, but

they were often forgotten in the management of that heritage. He underscored the need to

train local people and to foster and accept their involvement in the management of cultural

sites to ensure effectiveness and solidarity. He provided the example of the cultural banks

established in some villages in Mali, which were managed by the villagers themselves. The

items in those banks were ethnographic objects that people had contributed and for which

they received a small loan in return. The banks facilitated villagers’ involvement in the

management of cultural heritage and helped curb the illicit trade in artefacts.

78. He concluded that the management of heritage was not viable without

multidimensional cooperation that prioritized the role of local populations and provided

them with the support needed to perform the task.

B. Summary of discussions and inputs received

79. During the interactive discussion, representatives of Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Iraq and

the Syrian Arab Republic took the floor, along with representatives of the Baha’i

International Community, the European Association of Archaeologists, Turquoise

Mountain and the Penn Cultural Heritage Center at the University of Pennsylvania (United

States). Written inputs were also received from States and civil society.

80. Participants noted the need to protect not only heritage sites but also the landscape in

which they were situated, which retained remains and resonances of the cultural past.

Archaeologists were helpful in analysing satellite pictures or mapping sites, but local

people could add meaning and knowledge to what archaeologists saw.

81. Some participants underscored that minorities had been targeted and discriminated

against throughout history and subjected to gross human rights violations, including the

destruction of their cultural heritage. They recalled the essential role of prevention, through

early warning mechanisms, and of accountability for gross human rights violations. They

also recalled the need to develop an education system that was genuinely inclusive of

minorities in all decision-making processes.

82. A participant noted that work on emergency heritage protection required connecting

with local populations, particularly internally displaced persons. Mr. Boccardi suggested

that further attention be paid in heritage protection to the cultural rights of migrants,

refugees and displaced persons. Ms. Izak-Ndiaye noted that, besides States’ obligations

towards minorities who had resided in a territory for long periods, States must also address

the cultural needs and aspirations of migrants.

83. A participant pointed to the role of the Internet, and women’s unmonitored access to

it, in the preservation and creation of cultural heritage. In a written submission, the role of

libraries in the preservation of cultural heritage and the need for effective policies to

preserve collections of documentary heritage were also stressed.

84. Delegates supported the proposals to use the universal period review to address

cultural heritage concerns and create a contact mechanism for consultation on cultural

rights issues which would work across the United Nations system and with the Human

Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, indigenous and

community representatives, national Blue Shield committees, civil society organizations

and academia.

85. A written submission provided details about the cultural banks in Mali referred to by

Mr. Keita. The banks enabled rural populations to mobilize their cultural resources in a

sustainable and efficient way to meet their social, cultural and economic development

needs. They offered an alternative solution to the sale of cultural objects by valorizing the

objects to the advantage of the community. The banks, which were composed of a museum,

a microcredit bank and a cultural centre, facilitated the direct involvement of local people in

the management of their cultural heritage.

86. Participants underscored the need to combat the markets for trafficked cultural

property and to strengthen international cooperation to prevent, prosecute and punish

trafficking in cultural property. They recalled the recommendations contained in the

International Guidelines for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Responses with Respect

to Trafficking in Cultural Property and Other Related Offences.

C. National experiences

87. The representative of Cyprus recounted measures taken to curb illicit trafficking,

including: (a) legislative measures to monitor exports and exhibitions; (b) establishment of

the National Committee for the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property; (c)

active participation in bilateral and multilateral debates and negotiations; (d) digitalization

of cultural heritage; (e) monitoring of online and gallery auctions; (f) alerting authorities at

points of entry, exit or transit about cultural heritage at high risk; (g) education and

awareness-raising on the importance of cultural heritage.

88. The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic noted the Government’s efforts to

preserve and restore cultural heritage despite the challenges posed by the fight against terror

and the unilateral coercive measures imposed on the country. A civil society representative

shared information about the Syrian Cultural Index, an open online platform established to

counteract the fragmentation of Syrian identity caused by destruction and displacement and

to rebuild the country’s social fabric by bringing together local and displaced cultural

producers and showcasing their work.

89. The representative of Azerbaijan expressed serious concern about the cultural

property that was being unlawfully excavated, exported and sold in occupied territories.

The capital gained from those activities was used to fund further illicit activities.

Suggestions on how to curb these illegal activities are reflected in section VI.

90. The representative of Iraq noted the destruction of tangible and intangible cultural

heritage by Daesh and stressed the plight of Christians, Yazidi, Shabak, Turkmen and other

groups. Following the liberation of the areas in which those groups lived, Iraq faced many

challenges related to the return of displaced persons and the restoration of cultural heritage.

91. The representative of the Baha’i International Community raised the issue of

historical revisionism and noted that some Governments purposely obliterated the history

and culture of certain groups due to prejudice and discrimination.

VI. Conclusions and recommendations

A. Conclusions

92. Discussions at the seminar focused on the need to adopt a human rights approach to

the protection of cultural heritage. The destruction of cultural heritage is a human rights

issue and responses to it require a holistic approach centred on the realization of human

rights, particularly cultural rights. Measures to protect cultural heritage must focus on

tangible and intangible heritage.

93. Participants noted existing gaps in implementation and lessons learned in the

struggle to protect cultural heritage, and provided numerous recommendations for the

effective design and implementation of a human rights approach to its preservation, which

are compiled below.

94. Participants highlighted that the lack of an inclusive approach to what we identify as

cultural heritage could lead to fractured narratives and obstacles to the universal enjoyment

of cultural rights. Speakers underscored the need for a universal approach to heritage which

treated everyone’s heritage as equally important and deserving of the same respect.

95. The axiom “no decisions about us without us” was repeated during the course of the

seminar and covered several themes, from the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples

to the implication of internally displaced persons and local populations in those decisions.

Concerning the latter, participants underscored the important role played by those who were

closely related to heritage sites.

96. The positive impact that cultural heritage could have on sustainable development as

well as on transitional justice was also emphasized in the discussions.

B. Recommendations

97. The recommendations contained in the relevant reports of the Special

Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights (A/HRC/17/38, A/HRC/31/59 and Corr.1 and

A/71/317), Human Rights Council resolution 33/20 and Security Council resolutions

2199 (2015) and 2347 (2017) should be implemented in full.

98. The following recommendations complement those contained in the documents

cited above and focus exclusively on the measures required for the adoption of a

human rights approach to the protection of cultural heritage.

Recommendations addressed to States

Ratification and implementation of international instruments and standards

99. States should:

(a) Ratify the core cultural heritage conventions and other relevant

standards for the protection of cultural heritage, including:

(i) The 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the

Event of Armed Conflict and the 1954 and 1999 Protocols thereto;

(ii) The 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the

Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property;

(iii) The 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August

1949;

(iv) The 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural

Heritage;

(v) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;

(vi) The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

and the Optional Protocol thereto;

(b) Enact domestic legislation that enables full implementation of those

conventions;

(c) Make use of the universal periodic review to encourage other States to

ratify them.

Institutional, legal and judicial framework

100. States should:

(a) Ensure that national institutional, legal and judicial frameworks for the

protection of cultural heritage address tangible and intangible heritage, and

strengthen these using a human rights approach;

(b) Ensure that policies related to the protection, safeguarding and

preservation of cultural heritage adopt a human rights approach. Such an approach

should include the involvement of and consultation with minorities and local

populations, as well as marginalized groups, in all aspects of decision-making;

(c) Ensure that national laws and customary rules and practices aiming at

the protection and conservation of cultural heritage reinforce each other and comply

with international standards;

(d) Allocate sufficient budgetary resources, at both national and

international levels, to the protection of cultural heritage;

(e) Adopt measures to ensure accountability for the destruction of cultural

heritage, in particular:

(i) Facilitate criminal prosecution at national and international levels of

those responsible for intentional and negligent destruction of cultural heritage,

looting and illicit trafficking in cultural objects by State and non-State actors,

in accordance with relevant international standards;

(ii) Develop guidelines for the documentation of heritage and the collection

and preservation of evidence for the purpose of prosecution, in compliance with

international standards; collect and preserve evidence in full compliance with

these standards;

(iii) Promote truth and reparation processes with regard to the destruction of

cultural heritage which involve all relevant stakeholders, and ensure a central

role to victims;

(f) Include cultural heritage and cultural rights in any transitional justice or

truth and reconciliation processes;

(g) Train members of the judiciary and parliament, government officials,

relevant law enforcement officials, education professionals and museum and library

professionals on relevant human rights aspects of cultural heritage, including its

protection, safeguarding and preservation and respect for its diversity.

Promotion of pluralism and respect for diversity

101. States should:

(a) Tackle, in accordance with international standards, extremist and

fundamentalist ideologies, sectarianism and discriminatory attitudes towards, inter

alia, minorities, indigenous peoples and women, which often lead to cultural cleansing

in the form of cultural heritage destruction, while ensuring that critical strategies in

this regard include education, respect for human rights and promotion of tolerance

and pluralism;

(b) Implement educational programmes on the importance of the cultural

heritage and cultural rights of all, especially for young people, and review existing

curricula to ensure that they reflect the different cultures and heritages present in a

country, including that of minorities, provide knowledge about the culture and

heritage of others and promote a culture of pluralism and respect for diversity;

(c) Acknowledge the role media can play in mainstreaming cultural heritage

concerns and promoting a culture respectful of heritage diversity, and adopt measures

to educate media workers on relevant human rights aspects of cultural heritage,

including its protection, safeguarding and preservation and respect for its diversity;

(d) Ensure that the culture and heritage of local populations and minorities

are not stigmatized in national media and institutions;

(e) Adopt a fully gender-sensitive approach to the protection of cultural

heritage which recognizes the work of women defenders of cultural heritage, promotes

their inclusion in relevant settings and addresses the challenges they face in accessing

cultural heritage.

Conditions for the meaningful engagement of right holders

102. States should:

(a) Respect the rights of heritage professionals and other defenders of

cultural heritage, work at the national and international levels to ensure their safety

and security, and provide them with the conditions necessary to perform their work,

including material and technical assistance;

(b) Grant asylum to at-risk cultural heritage professionals and defenders

when necessary and ensure that displaced heritage professionals are able to continue

their work and training in exile and to take part in the protection and rehabilitation of

their country’s cultural heritage;

(c) Facilitate the issuance of visas and travel arrangements for heritage

professionals and scholars based in conflict areas so they can participate in

international events where they can share their experiences and access best practices,

advice and support;

(d) Ensure the meaningful participation of local populations, heritage

defenders, minorities and indigenous peoples in cultural heritage decision-making,

bearing in mind that there should be “no decision about them without them”;

(e) Encourage, foster and accept the involvement of local people in the

management and protection of cultural sites and institutions responsible for the

safeguard of cultural heritage and transmission, and provide them with training in

this regard;

(f) Conduct thorough consultations with local, national and international

stakeholders before engaging in rehabilitation, reconstruction or long-term

preservation efforts, and ensure that concerned populations, including displaced

persons and refugees, play a central role in these processes as well as in determining

how to memorialize recent destruction;

(g) Make every effort to include the viewpoints of local populations,

minorities and indigenous peoples in historical narratives and school curricula,

including about cultural heritage;

(h) Assess the potential impact that cultural heritage can have on poverty

reduction, employment generation and economic development at the local level and,

where advisable, adopt measures that promote the use of such heritage in full

compliance with human rights standards, particularly cultural rights, and with the

direct participation of the persons concerned;

(i) Implement or facilitate programmes of vocational training targeted

particularly at young people which promote the traditional skills and crafts essential

for the recreation and preservation of local cultural heritage.

Preventive measures

103. States should:

(a) Analyse the root causes underpinning disrespect or destruction of

cultural heritage and adopt targeted strategies to address existing or potential threats

to this heritage;

(b) Prepare in peacetime for any possible threat to cultural heritage in time

of war, including by recording and documenting the tangible and intangible cultural

heritage within their jurisdictions, using digital technologies wherever feasible,

defining cultural heritage protection priorities and communicating these to relevant

authorities and agencies, including military and peacekeeping forces;

(c) Formulate cultural heritage mapping processes and include cultural

impact assessments in the planning of development projects, in consultation with

concerned populations.

Armed forces, peacekeeping missions and humanitarian actors

104. States should:

(a) Recognize the protection of cultural heritage and cultural rights as a

critical component of humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping and peacebuilding

before, during and after conflict;

(b) Systematically incorporate cultural heritage awareness and

safeguarding, as well as respect and protection of cultural rights, in the mandate and

relevant rules of engagement of armed forces, peacekeeping missions and

humanitarian actors and in peacebuilding and post-conflict reconciliation initiatives,

and ensure adequate training concerning these aspects.

Measures to curb illicit trade in cultural property

105. States should:

(a) Adopt legal and judicial measures to criminalize the illicit import and

export of cultural property, the looting of archaeological and cultural sites and their

illicit excavation, in compliance with relevant international standards;

(b) Adopt administrative, financial, fiscal and educational measures,

consistent with international standards, to thwart the markets for trafficked cultural

property.

Recommendations addressed to the international community

106. The international community should:

(a) Provide technical and financial support to national and international

institutions in the cultural heritage sector that integrate a human rights approach;

(b) Mobilize resources to support local populations, heritage defenders and

indigenous peoples working on the protection of cultural heritage;

(c) Consider the creation of a mechanism for systematically collecting,

analysing and distributing information on at-risk cultural heritage defenders around

the world;

(d) Consider, where relevant, addressing cultural rights and cultural

heritage issues in the work of the Human Rights Council, including the universal

periodic review, with a focus on the following issues: protection, participation,

international cooperation, access, freedom, security of persons working on heritage

and ratification of relevant instruments;

(e) Encourage continued support from States, including the core group that

sponsored Council resolution 33/20, for the findings and recommendations of the

present report, including through the adoption of new, action-oriented resolutions;

(f) Consider establishing a contact group of interested States, concerned

United Nations mechanisms and civil society representatives to carry them forward.

Recommendations addressed to the United Nations

107. The United Nations should:

(a) Strengthen the collaboration between UNESCO, OHCHR and the

Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights to ensure the mainstreaming of a

human rights approach to the protection of cultural heritage in their work and that of

other relevant human rights mechanisms, as well as to promote consideration of

cultural rights within humanitarian, security and peacebuilding operations;

(b) Explicitly integrate the protection of cultural property and cultural

rights within the mandate of United Nations peacekeeping operations, in accordance

with paragraph 19 of Security Council resolution 2347 (2017);

(c) Facilitate the inclusion of local populations, heritage defenders and

indigenous peoples in United Nations work and debates concerning the promotion and

protection of cultural heritage.

108. UNESCO, OHCHR and the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights

should develop a manual for the application of a cultural rights-based approach to

humanitarian, security and peacebuilding operations, as well as a human rights

approach to heritage conservation.

109. OHCHR could envisage providing consultative services to States in the

implementation of relevant international instruments.

Recommendations addressed to civil society

110. Civil society organizations should:

(a) Submit more shadow reports and individual complaints related to article

15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and under

the Optional Protocol thereto, to help expand the Committee’s jurisprudence

regarding the right to take part in cultural life and the right to access and enjoy

cultural heritage;

(b) Submit further contributions to the universal periodic review process on

these issues.