Opinion On The Protection Of Cultural Property In Times Of Armed Conflict

Original Language Title: Avis sur la protection des biens culturels en période de conflit armé

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
JORF n ° 0166 July 21, 2015 text no. 28 notice on the protection of cultural property in times of conflict armed NOR: CDHX1516257V ELI: not available plenary Assembly of July 2, 2015 (adopted unanimously) 1. Destruction of the old city of Dubrovnik in Croatia in 1991 and 1992 (1), the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan in 2001 (2), the mausoleum of Timbuktu in Mali in 2012 (3), the cathedrals of Baghdad in Iraq in 2010 (4) and Alexandria in Egypt in 2011 (5), the collections of the Museum of Mosul and the ancient city of Nimrud in Iraq in February and March 2015 (6). , or even threats that currently affect the city of Palmyra in Syria etc, examples that demonstrate the importance of protecting cultural and religious objects in today's armed conflicts. Cultural goods are sometimes destroyed through indiscriminate bombing but are also more and more often deliberately targeted because of what they represent. Through their destruction, "it's identity [even], its culture and its faith sought to wipe out" (7). Hereafter, these are also the common roots of humanity and its historical heritage are being attacked, "committed attacks against the cultural heritage of all countries [to be considered as] of the attacks on the common heritage of all mankind" (8). States, meeting within the General Assembly of the United Nations, have recently said "the destruction of the cultural heritage, which is a manifestation of the diversity of human culture, will erase the collective memory of a nation, destabilizes people and undermines their cultural identity" and stressed "the importance of diversity and cultural pluralism as well as freedom of religion and belief for the peace, stability, reconciliation and social cohesion' (9). The preservation of cultural property, in that it promotes the cultural diversity, is therefore now acknowledged as a factor for peace.
2. faced with these events, described as 'cultural cleansing' by the Director-General of UNESCO (10), the international community decided to react in various forms and at different levels in order to better protect cultural heritage in today's armed conflicts. The United Nations Security Council has thus integrated cultural heritage protection to the mandate of the peacekeeping mission in Mali (integrated multidimensional Mission of the United Nations for the stabilization in Mali - MINUSMA) (11) and has recently adopted a resolution condemning «the destruction of Iraqi and Syrian cultural heritage», which, in this case, is designed to generate revenue intended to finance actions on terrorism (12). As previously mentioned, the General Assembly of the United Nations has recently adopted a resolution on the preservation of the cultural heritage of the Iraq in which it said "deeply appalled by the acts of destruction and looting to which the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (EIIL), also called Daech, aimed the Iraq cultural heritage, cradle of the Mesopotamian civilization in its museums, libraries, archives and archaeological sites, places of worship, including mosques, churches and holy places, as well as religious and cultural objects, thus inflicting irreparable losses to the Iraq and the whole of humanity"(13). It calls the resolution all States to support the actions for the safeguarding of heritage in Iraq carried out by the Iraqi authorities and UNESCO.
3. the UNESCO has, for its part, defined a new set of strategic proposals to respond to the threat posed by the Islamic State against cultural property (14). It has, Furthermore, implemented, in partnership with the European Union, an Observatory of the Syrian cultural heritage which brings together all relevant data on the State of conservation of this heritage, and this to anticipate (15) post-conflict reconstruction.
4. Finally, Interpol is seized of the matter, from the specific angle of theft and trafficking of cultural properties (16). Several initiatives have been taken in this area, under the aegis of UNESCO to conduct assessment missions, training and exchange of information. Interpol was involved in the protection of the Malian cultural sites, brought its support and assistance to countries facing situations of conflict as was the case for the illicit traffic of cultural property after the crises in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria. Interpol has also devoted two recent conferences on the protection of cultural property in situations of crisis and conflict (17).
5. these initiatives complement usefully the legal framework put in place from the beginning of the 20th century, and then strengthened in response to the dispossession and the subsequent destruction of cultural property. This device is the result of progressive awareness of the international community on the fact that the protection of cultural property is related to the protection of the civilian population and must be an integral part of the legal, political and humanitarian response conflict to lasting peace.
6. the regulations annexed to the Hague Convention concerning laws and customs of war on land of 1899 and 1907 were already protecting the worship places of the consequences of the armed conflict (18).
7. the Hague Convention and its first Protocol, adopted on 14 May 1954, constitute the first international instruments specifically dedicated to the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. They provide for safeguard measures, to be taken in time of peace, as well as provisions to respect for cultural property in times of armed conflict. Thus, cultural goods, like their means of protection and their immediate vicinity, must not be used for purposes that could expose these property destruction or damage in the event of conflict armed"and must be protected against any act of hostility. It cannot be derogated from these obligations, except "in cases when military necessity so requires, in a peremptory manner" (article 4, §1 and §2 of the Convention). In addition, the Convention puts in place a regime of special protection for some immovable cultural property "of very high importance" (articles 8 to 11). These two instruments have been ratified by the France on 7 June 1957.
8 the Hague poses, in article 1, a definition of cultural property which means, ' (regardless of their origin or their owner: has) property, movable or immovable, which have great importance to the cultural heritage of peoples, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, religious or secular, archaeological sites, the buildings which. as such, are of historic or artistic interest, works of art, manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest, as well as scientific collections and important collections of books, archives or reproductions of goods defined above;
(b) the buildings whose principal and effective destination is to maintain or expose movable cultural property as defined in paragraph a, such as museums, libraries, archival repositories, as well as the refuges intended to shelter in the event of armed conflict, movable cultural property defined in paragraph a;
(c)) the centres comprising a significant number of cultural properties that are defined in paragraphs a and b, so-called "centres containing monuments".
9. the two protocols of 8 June 1977, additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ratified by France, complement this device by prohibiting «the destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity [...]» such as historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual peoples; heritage use them in support of the military effort and make it the object of reprisals"(article 53 of the 1st Protocol relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts) or by prohibiting" to commit any act of hostility directed against historical monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to use them in support of the military effort"(article 16 of the 2nd Protocol relating to the protection of victims of) non-international armed conflicts).

10. the resurgence of the destruction of cultural property during armed conflict of the 1990s has revealed the weaknesses of these instruments. Their provisions were then supplemented by a second Protocol to the Hague Convention, adopted on 26 March 1999, which establishes a regime of "enhanced protection" for certain goods falling within the cultural heritage "of the utmost importance for humanity" (articles 12 to 14). This new regime is called to replace the regime of special protection by the Convention of 1954, when a well placed under special protection is then placed under enhanced protection (19). In addition, it specifies measures for the safeguarding and respect of cultural property, specifying the provisions of international humanitarian law relating to the "precautions" to take "in the attacks" and "against the effects of attacks" (articles 7 and 8) as well as through strictly possible derogations taken "on the basis of imperative military necessity", assuming two cumulative conditions : the property has been transformed into military objective and "there is no alternative as practically possible to gain a military advantage equivalent to that offered by directing an act of hostility against that objective" (article 6). This second Protocol has, to date, been signed nor ratified by the France.
11. regarding criminalization, article 15 of the second Protocol defines five acts which, when committed intentionally, constitute serious violations to the 1954 Convention and Protocol 2: "a. make a cultural property under enhanced protection the object of attack; b. use a cultural property under enhanced protection or its immediate surroundings in support of military action. v. destroy or appropriating on a large scale of protected cultural property; d. making cultural property protected the object of attack; e. theft, looting or the misuse of protected cultural property, and acts of vandalism directed against cultural property protected". These offences must be implicated in domestic law and, as the Convention of 1954 (article) 28 that Protocol II (article 15), require that States adopt all measures to look for, try and punish the perpetrators of such acts.
(12. Furthermore, according to article 85 d) of additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions, "directing attacks against historical monuments, works of art or places of worship clearly recognized which constitute the cultural or spiritual peoples heritage and to which special protection has been given under a special arrangement, for example within the framework of a competent international organization causing their destruction on a large scale, while there is no evidence of the violation by the adverse party of article 53, subparagraph (b), and the historic monuments, works of art and places of worship in question are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives"constitutes a grave breach of international humanitarian law, if this Act is committed intentionally, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and its additional Protocol 1.
13. Finally, "seizure, destruction or the wilful damage to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, arts and sciences, historical monuments, works of art and works of a scientific character" have also been punished by the international status of the Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (article 3 (d)) (20) and the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court ratified by the France on 9 June 2000, criminalizes of war: "-intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable action, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick or wounded are collected, provided that they are not military objectives" in situations of international armed conflict (article 8 [2] [b] [ix]) , as well as;
(["- the fact of directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable action, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, intentionally for as much as these buildings are not military objectives" in case of armed conflict not of an international character (article 8 [2] [e)] [iv)]).
14. many of these scattered normative provisions are recognized as having a customary value, as specified in the study of the international Committee of the Red Cross on the right customary humanitarian international (rules 38 to 41). They are applicable both in times of international armed conflict and non-international armed conflict and must therefore be respected both by the State, non-State actors.
15. on the other hand, other specific international instruments have been developed to prevent and prohibit the acts of looting and trafficking of cultural property (21), phenomena that often accompany, and sometimes motivate, attacks on protected cultural property.
16. faced with this dense international legal corpus, this opinion will endeavour to consider membership of the France of the second Protocol to the Convention of the Hague, the implementation of the provisions of these instruments and finally, the promotion of their protective measures both internal with external operations.
In terms of ratifications: towards membership of the France to the second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict.
17. Although the France is part of the most active States in the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, as evidenced by its diplomatic actions on the subject (22), it is not a party to the second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict (23). The French authorities had considered in 1999 that some of the provisions of the second Protocol were too restrictive compared with the general international humanitarian law. So far, the armed forces today consider that this Protocol is now more no difficulty from an operational point of view and that it is indeed already applied by the armed forces French in the context of the conduct of hostilities (24).
18. the entry into force on 9 March 2004, of the second Protocol is the most recent and the most thorough advance in the legal protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, especially with regard to the enhanced protection and criminal sanctions. Regarding prevention, the Protocol officially recognizes the international Committee of the Blue Shield, whose role is to protect and safeguard the cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict or disasters. As an illustration of its action, the international Committee organized trainings to sensitize staff of the MINUSMA on the protection of cultural property in an emergency situation. The obligations of dissemination with the military and the civilian population (art. 30) are also included.
19. in addition, the second Protocol of 1999 develops an institutional component in establishing a Committee for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. This international body - comprised of twelve States elected for four years, whose secretariat is provided by UNESCO - is responsible for supervision of the implementation of the second Protocol, including by maintaining the list of cultural property under enhanced protection, promoting their identification and examining requests for international assistance. The adherence to the additional protocol would allow France to participate in the work of this Committee.
20. accession by the France would be an encouragement to States non-parties to do the same, including African States plagued by many conflicts. In a crucial moment where cultural property are intentional targets of armed groups, the France accession to this instrument would be a symbolic gesture, which would show its commitment to the protection of cultural property.
21. given the involvement of the France increased in several armed conflicts outside its territory and in order to further contribute to the respect for the protective provisions of the cultural property in these situations, the CNCDH strongly encourages France to join the second Protocol as soon as possible.
Plan internal: towards implementation of the Convention of 1954 and its two additional protocols.
22. the french law includes various provisions to protect cultural property. Thus, article 461-13 of the penal code (25) and article D. 4122-10 defense (26) Code criminalize attacks on cultural property, in accordance with the protocols additional to the Geneva Convention, in article 28 of the Hague Convention of 1954 (27).
23. article 15 of the second Protocol establishes a list of serious offences to be criminalized in States parties (cf supra §10). Once the Protocol is ratified by the France, appropriate to examine precisely the french law in the light of these provisions.

24. on the basis of these incriminations, and under its various titles of jurisdiction, including extraterritorial jurisdiction, the France should participate actively in the fight against impunity for violations of the norms of international humanitarian law, including the protection of cultural property. The General Assembly of the United Nations, in its latest resolution on the subject, recalling and "it is important to make accountable perpetrators of attacks intentionally aimed buildings dedicated to religion, education, arts, science or charitable purposes or historical monuments, insofar as they are not military objectives" and calls "upon all States to take the necessary measures to this end in their jurisdiction. ', in accordance with applicable international law "(28). In this regard, the CNCDH recalls its recommendation to delete article 689-11 of the code of criminal procedure the four criteria which restrict, or even prohibit, a jurisdiction effective of French criminal courts over certain violations of law international humanitarian (29).
25. irrespective of the provisions of a penal nature, international instruments call internal adaptation measures, which sometimes seem insufficiently taken into account by the french law. Indeed, the operative and institutional french in this area could be improved in order to ensure an effective implementation of international obligations, inspired by the proposals contained in the model law of the ICRC (30).
26. Thus, is the inclusion of cultural property under special protection in the "international register of cultural property under special protection", managed by UNESCO. However, the France has already registered no site in this register. The law of 31 December 1913 on historic monuments, whose provisions are codified in the code's heritage since the order of 20 February 2004, well provides the identification of assets to be protected because of their historical, artistic or archaeological interest (31). However, no provision provides for the inclusion on the list of property under special protection and a fortiori under enhanced protection. Even if this nomination does not seem to be crucial for the France that knows no armed conflict on its territory, it would constitute a positive incentive to the States most directly affected as well as an important step towards the creation of a database that is shared at the international level.
27. Finally, pursuant to resolution II of the Hague Conference of 1954 (32), it would be relevant that the France establish a national Advisory Committee whose mission would be to ensure the implementation of the Convention, like many foreign examples (33). This Committee should be placed "under the authority of the Minister or the official of which depend on the national services responsible for ensuring the interests of cultural property" and would be mandated to:-advise the Government on the measures necessary for the implementation of the Convention on legislative, technical or military plans in time of peace or armed conflict;
-intervene with his Government in the event of armed conflict or imminence of such a conflict, so that cultural property located on the national territory and the territories of other countries be known, respected and protected by the armed forces of the country, according to the provisions of the Convention;
-ensure, in agreement with its Government, the liaison and cooperation with the other committees of this type and with any competent international body.
At the level of its composition, it is recommended to integrate the Committee of representatives of all the State services concerned with the protection of cultural property in the broad sense.
28. the national Committee exists in different countries and is sometimes directly integrated to the national implementation of the international law Commission humanitarian (34). This approach is also advocated by the ICRC and UNESCO (35). In France, CNCDH is considered the commission on implementation of international humanitarian law. As for the french Committee of the Blue Shield, to ensure implementation by France of the 1954 Convention, putting in place preventive measures, backup and training on the protection of cultural property in the event of crisis (conflict, natural disasters). It is composed of specialists on heritage and the various ministries concerned are (non-voting) members. The national Advisory Committee which should be established in France must associate, under forms deemed necessary, this association and this institution.
To operational and diplomatic: towards better protection of cultural property.
29. on the operational and diplomatic levels, the CNCDH calls that particular vigilance continues to be granted by France at different levels.
Military training: 30. In order to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, the ICRC recommends the adoption of measures to ensure a good knowledge of the law in general and therefore more specific provisions for the protection of cultural property. In order to fulfil this obligation, it is necessary that States develop and implement, in cooperation with UNESCO and other relevant organizations, programmes of instruction and education in peacetime. In France, the protection of cultural property is addressed through the training of legal advisers (LEGAD). In the absence of service specializing in the protection of cultural property, as recommended in article 7.2 of the Convention of 1954 (36), these advisors are referents in the French army in this area. The quality of their training in cultural property is therefore all the more important. Courses are also taught by the national Centre of targeting for the benefit of the armed forces (37). The Ministry of defence has also developed a handbook on army on the protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict, which is a large broadcast insured including by UNESCO from other armies in the world.
31. within the framework of operations conducted with foreign armies, France, in respect of its obligation "to respect" the right international humanitarian (38), has a responsibility in the dissemination to partners of the rules on the protection of cultural property. More generally, the training provided by the French army to the foreign armed forces should be more an opportunity to discuss in detail the legal and operational regime applicable for the protection of cultural property.
External operations: 32. Pursuant to the international obligations that bind States, the national armies must integrate in their military regulations of the guidelines and instructions on the protection of cultural property. The French armed forces include the protection of cultural property in the planning and conduct of operations. This involves the identification of cultural property cannot be the subject of an attack. The CNCDH considers that these lists should be easily identifiable by the french military and, where appropriate, shared with foreign armies participating in the operation.
The use of the distinctive sign: you can see the image in the JOnº 0166 from 21/07/2015 facsimile, text no. 2833. The distinguishing sign provided for in the Hague Convention to protect and facilitate the identification of cultural objects (chapter V of the 1954 Convention: the distinguishing sign, which seeks only or repeatedly depending on the circumstances, is recognized by the France.) However, although abusive and undue the distinguishing sign use either punished by the code of military justice (39), french government - military or non - do not use (40). The CNCDH encourages France to use its territory, in time of peace, preventive and awareness-raising, to ensure the promotion of this sign with its partners and calling the warring parties to use it more.
34. Similarly, the installation of shelters to house cultural property under protection, in the event of imminent attack, should be a practice developed and encouraged by the France.
International cooperation: 35. The recent resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations calls on all States "to help the Iraqi authorities to combat trafficking in cultural property (...)." and to provide a contest in criminal justice and to help repair, restore and conserve cultural heritage damaged or destroyed. This call underlines the importance of international cooperation for the protection of cultural property, to States already weakened by armed conflict. French expertise in the field of cultural property should be further enhanced in the framework of actions of cooperation and technical assistance. The participation of french heritage experts in the development by UNESCO of a 'passport for heritage', with a map and a description of the cultural property to protect the Malian territory, issued to veterans is a positive example of the type of action that the relevant French authorities should continue to develop. In this context, it would be wise to do more appeal to the experts of the french Committee of the Blue Shield, that can act as French expertise and resource centre.

1 adhere to the second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, 26 March 1999.
2. in parallel with the accession process, examine whether french law conforms to the provisions of the 1954 Convention and two additional protocols.
3. strengthening the implementation of the Convention of 1954 and the additional protocols, including by:-the use on its territory of the distinguishing sign permitting identification of cultural property;
-the creation of a national Advisory Committee implemented in accordance with resolution II of the Conference of 1954 Hague, involving closely and directly the CNCDH, making humanitarian office in France's implementation of the international law commission;
-registration of french cultural properties in the register of UNESCO's cultural property under special protection and protection, once the second Protocol ratified.
4. develop training on the legal regime and operational devices for the protection of cultural goods, destined for the french military in external operations as well as for the benefit of foreign armies as part of cooperation agreements or participation in multinational operations.
5 support the action of the french Committee of the blue shield on promotion and prevention of attacks and damage to cultural property.
6 strengthen cooperation and assistance in the field of the protection of cultural property, relying where appropriate on the expertise of the french Committee of the Blue Shield.
(1) the city of Dubrovnik has suffered the onslaught of artillery, on 23-24 October, from 8 to 13 November and 6 December 1991, then its monuments were the initials of the 1954 Convention. The city was bombed again in May and June 1992.
(2) the cultural landscape and archaeological remains of the Bamiyan Valley represent the artistic and religious developments which, from the 1st to the 13th centuries characterized ancient Bakhtria, integrating various cultural influences to form the school of Buddhist art of Gandhara. The site contains several monastic ensembles and sanctuaries Buddhists, as well as the fortified buildings in the Islamic period.
(3) may 4, 2012, Cheick Sidi Mahmoud of Timbuktu mausoleum, one of the 16 mausoleums that are part of the property inscribed on the World Heritage list has been damaged by the Ansar Dine group. The mausoleum of Cheick mens Tamba - Tamba, being also part of the property inscribed on the World Heritage list, has also been vandalised.
(4) in October 2010, a mass in the Catholic Baghdad Syriac Cathedral has been the object of an armed attack by a group of Al-Qaida. This attack, which killed 46 people among the faithful, mostly women and children, is one of the deadliest against Christians in Iraq.
(5) in the night of December 31 to January 1, 2011, an attack on a Coptic Church in Alexandria, Egypt caused 21 deaths and nearly 80 wounded.
(6) as second largest Museum of Iraq, Mosul Museum houses hundreds of objects of Assyrian descent, some dating back over 3,000 years. In 2003, a few 1 500 objects were displaced in a safe place at the Baghdad Museum, but other statues - too large or too fragile - remained in Mosul. On March 5, the city of Nimrud was destroyed the bulldozer. This city, founded more than 3300 years ago, was once a capital of the Assyrian empire, including frescoes, the palaces and works are famous worldwide, in literature and sacred texts. Two days later, on 7 March, the town of Hatra, on the heritage list UNESCO, world was hit.
(7) François Bugnion, the genesis of the legal protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, IRRC, June 2004, vol. 86, no. 854, pp. 313.
(8) resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 28 may 2015, the safeguarding of the cultural heritage of Iraq, A/RES/69/281.
(9) resolution A/RES/69/281.
(10) words by Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO at the International Conference on "Heritage and cultural diversity in danger in Iraq and Syria", Paris, 3 December 2014.
(11) the Security Council of the United Nations "strongly condemning the destruction of the cultural and historical heritage, committed in Mali by any group or any person" Decides to give the MINUSMA a mandate to support the safeguarding of the cultural heritage of "help the Malian transition authorities, as appropriate, and if possible, to protect the sites cultural and historical of the country against all attacks ', in collaboration with the UNESCO ", Resolution 2100 (2013), adopted on 25 April 2013.
(12) resolution 2199 (2015) of the United Nations Security Council, adopted on February 21, 2015.
(13) resolution A/RES/69/281.
(14) report of UNESCO, heritage and cultural diversity in danger in Iraq and Syria, International Conference, December 3, 2014.
(15) see the Syrian link to the Observatory of cultural heritage.
(16) Interpol is an international organization established in 1923 to promote international police cooperation. Since 1947, the date on which the first international manual on stolen works of art was published, Interpol plays a particularly active role in conducted combat against the illicit trade in cultural property.
(17) the 8th international symposium in 2014 on the theft and smuggling of objects of art, cultural property and antiques dealt with the protection of cultural property in crisis situations and the need for a strengthening of security of archaeological sites. The 9th international symposium on the same theme in 2015 was focused on the protection of the cultural heritage against criminal acts and the dangers associated with the conflict.
(18) section 27 of the regulations annexed to the Hague Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land: "in the seats and bombings, all necessary measures must be taken to spare as far as possible, buildings devoted to cults, arts, science and charity, historic monuments, hospitals and places of gathering of sick and wounded as long as they are not used at the same time for a military purpose. With the duty of the besieged designate these buildings or places by special visible signs which will be notified in advance to the besieging forces".
(19) article 4 of the 2nd Protocol to the 1954 Convention: "the application of the provisions of Chapter 3 of this Protocol does not impair: (b) the application of chapter II of the Convention between the Parties to this Protocol as between a party and a State which accepts and applies this Protocol in accordance with article 3 paragraph 2, understanding that if cultural property is placed under the protection special and under the protection. "strengthened, only apply the provisions relating to the enhanced protection. In addition, Unesco encourages the use of the enhanced protection and term it should replace the special protection.
(20) in the judgement of Blaskic 3 March 2000, the ICTY said that the damage or destruction must have been committed intentionally: "on buildings which can be clearly identified as being dedicated to religion or education, and which are not used at the time of the facts, for military purposes. '' Buildings shall not be located in the immediate vicinity of military objectives ". This jurisprudence was confirmed on 26 February 2001, in the Kordic case, where it is stated that: "the basic principle to remember is that this protection, whatever be it, is thrown once these cultural assets, including buildings dedicated to education, are used for military purposes. In case Naletelic & Martinovic, considered on 31 March 2003, the judges of ICTY however objected to the assertion that protection ceases once the goods are located in the vicinity of military objectives, and proposes a less restrictive definition: "the Board considers that a crime within the meaning of section (d) has been committed when (...)". the destruction is an institution dedicated to the religion; the property was not used for military purposes; the author acted with intent to destroy property. In Jokic, the tribunal also held on 18 March 2004, that: "the bombing of the city of Dubrovnik was an attack not only against the history and heritage of the region but also against the cultural heritage of humanity".
(21) the UNESCO Convention concerning the measures to be taken to prohibit and prevent the import, export and transfer of ownership, illicit goods cultural (1970) the UNESCO Convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage (1972), the UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects (1995), the United Nations Convention against transnational organised (2000) the UNESCO Convention for the safeguarding of the cultural intangible heritage (2003), the Convention of UNESCO on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions (2005).

(22) France was for example responsible for the preparation of the text of the resolution 2100 (2013) entrusting to the MINUSMA a mandate for the protection of cultural heritage. In addition, the France has with Iraq, proposed the adoption of a decision by the 195th session of the Iraqi Executive Council of UNESCO on the protection of cultural heritage.
(23) to date, 68 States are currently parties to the second Protocol, including 19 Member States of the European Union.
(24) hearing of the Ministry of defence, June 4, 2015.
(25) article 461-13 of the penal code stipulates that "launching deliberate attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable action, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick or wounded are collected, for as much as these buildings are not used for military purposes. ', is punishable by twenty years of imprisonment.
(26) article D4122-10 of the defence code provides that "the military in combat must direct its attacks on military targets. It is therefore prohibited to destroy or seize civil property, except in the case of military necessity. The military is also required to respect the cultural property wherever they are located, unless a compelling military need to depart from this rule".
(27) article 28 of the Convention of 1954: "Sanctions: the High Contracting Parties undertake to take all necessary measures to ensure sought-after and minted of penal or disciplinary sanctions persons, under their system of criminal law, regardless of their nationality, who have committed or ordered to commit an offence under this Convention.
(28) resolution A/RES/69/281.
(29) see on this subject: CNCDH, opinion on the International Criminal Court, October 23, 2012.
(30) model law on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, international Committee of the Red Cross, for States of common law wishing to implement the obligations imposed on them under the Hague Convention of 1954 for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict and its protocols of 1954 and 1999. It is stated that "States of civil law, (...)". may refer to verify the provisions to be implemented in domestic law.
(31) A respect, the France establishes two modes of protection: the classification in respect of historical monuments (asset imprescriptible and subject to an export ban) and the inscription in the supplementary inventory (preventive mechanism which gives rise to an obligation to provide information to the responsibility of the owner when he plans to transform the property).
(32) resolution II of the Conference by the 1954 Hague: ' the Conference expresses the wish that, upon accession to the Convention, each of the High Contracting Parties constitutes, under its constitutional and administrative system a national Advisory Committee composed of a small number of personalities, such as senior officials of the archaeological services, museums, etc., a representative of the general staff. a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a specialist in international law, and two or three other members positions or competent in the areas covered by the Convention.
(33) hearing of Benjamin Goes, May 20, 2015. Among the measures implemented by the Interdepartmental Commission of Belgian humanitarian law (CIDH), these include: the creation of a Committee for implementation of the Geneva and the Hague within the IACHR conventions; the identification of two lists containing the property under mere protection and those under enhanced protection and advocacy with the Government work and national advocacy.
(34) in the Belgian example of the Interdepartmental Commission on humanitarian law which has established a Standing Committee on the implementation of the Convention of 1954 and its two protocols.
(35) a letter was sent in this sense by the ICRC and the Intergovernmental Committee for the protection of the cultural heritage of UNESCO to the CNCDH in September 2014.
(36) article 7(2) of the 1954 Convention: "(the high contracting parties) undertake to prepare or establish, as early as the time of peace, within their armed forces, services or specialist staff whose mission will be to ensure respect for cultural property and to collaborate with the civil authorities responsible for the safeguarding of these assets.
(37) created in 2000, the national targeting Centre (CNC) follows the lessons of the crisis in Kosovo and awareness of the interest and the importance of targeting in the acquisition of the superiority in a theatre of operations. Among its missions, it monitors and evaluates the interest and the vulnerabilities of the target entity, selects the target on which the military effort will be concentrated in coherence with the objectives of planning and resources (human, technical) available. Finally, he rides the operations necessary to treat the targets for the sake of efficiency and limitation to the maximum of the negative effects (collateral damage).
(38) this obligation is enshrined in article 1 common to the Geneva Conventions and the 1st and 3rd protocols.
(39) article L. 322-16 of the code of military justice: "the fact that any person, military or not, which, in time of war, in the area of operations of a force or training, in violation of the laws and customs of war, unduly uses distinctive signs and emblems defined by international conventions to ensure respect for persons, goods and places protected by these conventions ', is punishable by imprisonment for five years.
(40) report of France on the implementation of the Convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict - 1954 Hague Convention (April 2010): "La France does not, to date, the distinctive signs proposed by the Convention to protect cultural property.

Related Laws