Practice Relating to Rule 40. Respect for Cultural Property

Note: For practice concerning attacks against cultural property as part of the conduct of hostilities, see Rule 38.
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 56 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides:
The property of the communes, that of religious, charitable, and educational institutions, and those of arts and science, even when State property, shall be treated as private property. …
All seizure of, and destruction, or intentional damage done to such institutions, to historical monuments, works of art or science, is prohibited, and should be made the subject of proceedings. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 56.
Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 56 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides:
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.
All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 56.
Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 4(3) of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
The High Contracting Parties further undertake to prohibit, prevent and, if necessary, put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, cultural property. They shall refrain from requisitioning movable cultural property situated in the territory of another High Contracting Party. 
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Article 4(3).
Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 19(1) of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
In the event of an armed conflict not of an international character occurring within the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the provisions of the present Convention which relate to respect for cultural property. 
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Article 19(1).
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 15 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Protocol if that person intentionally and in violation of the Convention or this Protocol commits any of the following acts:
(e) theft, pillage or misappropriation of, or acts of vandalism directed against cultural property protected under the Convention.
2. Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law the offences set forth in this Article and to make such offences punishable by appropriate penalties. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 15.
UN-Cambodia Agreement Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea
Article 9 of the 2003 UN-Cambodia Agreement Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea provides:
The subject-matter jurisdiction of the Extraordinary Chambers shall be the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, crimes against humanity as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and such other crimes as defined in Chapter II of the Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers as promulgated on 10 August 2001. 
Agreement between the UN and the Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, Phnom Penh, 6 June 2003, Article 9.
In accordance with Article 2 of the Agreement, Cambodia’s Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001), as amended, further implements these provisions. 
Agreement between the UN and the Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, Phnom Penh, 6 June 2003, Article 2.
Lieber Code
Article 34 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides:
As a general rule, the property belonging to churches, to hospitals, or other establishments of an exclusively charitable character, to establishments of education, or foundations for the promotion of knowledge, whether public schools, universities, academies of learning or observatories, museums of the fine arts, or of a scientific character – such property is not to be considered public property in the sense of paragraph 31; but it may be taxed or used when the public service may require it. 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 34.
Lieber Code
Article 36 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides:
If such works of art, libraries, collections, or instruments belonging to a hostile nation or government, can be removed without injury, the ruler of the conquering state or nation may order them to be seized or removed for the benefit of the said nation. The ultimate ownership is to be settled by the ensuing treaty of peace.
In no case shall they be sold or given away, if captured by the armies of the United States, nor shall they ever be privately appropriated or wantonly destroyed or injured. 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 36.
Brussels Declaration
Article 8 of the 1874 Brussels Declaration provides:
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences even when State property, shall be treated as private property.
All seizure or destruction of, or wilful damage to, institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science should be made the subject of legal proceedings by the competent authorities. 
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874, Article 8.
Oxford Manual
Article 53 of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides:
The property of municipalities, and that of institutions devoted to religion, charity, education, art and science, cannot be seized.
All destruction or wilful damage to institutions of this character, historic monuments, archives, works of art, or science, is formally forbidden, save when urgently demanded by military necessity. 
The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, Article 53.
Report of the Commission on Responsibility
Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility lists violations of the laws and customs of war which should be subject to criminal prosecution, including “wanton destruction of religious, charitable, educational and historic buildings and monuments”.  
Report submitted to the Preliminary Conference of Versailles by the Commission on Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Versailles, 29 March 1919.
Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession
In the 1943 Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession, the Allied governments expressed their intention:
to do their utmost to defeat the methods of dispossession practised by the Governments with which they are at war against the countries and peoples who have been so wantonly assaulted and despoiled. Accordingly, the governments making this Declaration and the French National Committee reserve all their rights to declare invalid any transfers of, or dealing with, property, rights and interests of any description whatsoever which are, or have been, situated in the territories which have come under the occupation or control, direct or indirect, of the Governments with which they are at war, or which belong, or have belonged, to persons (including juridical persons) resident in such territories. This warning applies whether such transfers or dealings have taken the form of open looting or plunder, or of transactions apparently legal in form, even when they purport to be voluntarily effected. 
Inter-Allied Declaration against Acts of Dispossession Committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation or Control, as agreed between the Union of South Africa, United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Czechoslovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Greece, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, and the French National Committee, London, 5 January 1943.
ICTY Statute
Article 3(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute includes “seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science” among the violations of the laws or customs of war in respect to which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, as amended by Res. 1166, 13 May 1998 and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 3(d).
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Pursuant to Article 20(e)(iv) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[s]eizure of, destruction of or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and sciences” is a war crime. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 20(e)(iv).
Revised Lauswolt Document
Article 1(3) of the 1997 Revised Lauswolt Document states: “Any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, any act of vandalism directed against, any illicit transaction in, or any other breach of integrity of cultural property is prohibited.” 
Draft Provisions for the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention and Commentary from the UNESCO Secretariat, Paris, October 1997, UNESCO Doc. CLT-97/CONF.208/2, Article 1(3).
Revised Lauswolt Document
Article 12(1) of the 1997 Revised Lauswolt Document provides:
All the provisions of this instrument, the provisions of the Convention and its 1954 Protocol which relate to safeguarding of, and respect for, cultural property shall apply in the event of an armed conflict not of an international character, occurring within the territory of one of the States Parties. 
Draft Provisions for the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention and Commentary from the UNESCO Secretariat, Paris, October 1997, UNESCO Doc. CLT-97/CONF.208/2, Article 12(1).
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 6.6 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin states: “Theft, pillage, misappropriation and any act of vandalism directed against cultural property is strictly prohibited.” 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 6.6.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides:
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.
All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 5.016.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states:
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, is treated as private property and any seizure or destruction of that property is prohibited. If that property is located in any area which is subject to seizure or bombardment, then it must be secured against all avoidable damage and injury. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 741.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
The property of municipalities and that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, the arts and sciences is treated as private property and any seizure or destruction of that property is prohibited. If that property is located in any area that is subject to seizure or bombardment, then it must be secured against all avoidable damage and injury. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.44.
The manual further states:
Cultural property is also protected. Cultural property includes movable and immovable objects of great importance to the cultural heritage of people, whether their state is involved in the conflict or not, such as historical monuments, archaeological sites, books, manuscripts or scientific papers and the buildings or other places in which such objects are housed. Obligations are placed upon all parties to respect cultural property by not exposing it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict and by refraining from any act of hostility directed against such property. These obligations may be waived where military necessity requires such waiver, as in the case where the object is used for military purposes. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.28.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) lists “the deliberate seizure, destruction or damage of buildings dedicated to religion, charitable purposes, education, [or to] science, … historic monuments, … works of art or … scientific works” as a “violation of the laws and customs of war”. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 27; see also Part I bis, p. 87.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states:
352.2- Special protection: (persons and objects specially protected.)
Certain categories of persons and objects benefit from special protection under the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law, both in the civilian domain and in the military domain.
352.24 Cultural objects and places of worship:
These are objects which represent a high cultural value or have an important religious designation and whose immunity may not be withdrawn … [They include]:
- historic monuments;
- works of art;
- places of worship.
They benefit from special protection and do not have to be specially marked.
352.25 Marked cultural objects:
[There are two categories of marked cultural objects:]
- Cultural objects under general protection [such as] [m]onuments, archaeological sites, historic or artistic buildings; and
- Cultural objects of an exceptional value under special protection [such as] holdings of cultural goods and other goods of very high importance. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, pp. 92–94, §§ 352.2–352.24; see also pp. 134–136, §§ 412.2–412.25 and p. 230, § 543.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 31: Humanitarian rules
Every soldier must:
- ensure that cultural and religious property remains in place, during operations as well as during occupation, and in particular spare buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, and historic monuments, as well as their staff.
For the application of the rules addressed in the two preceding paragraphs,
it is evidently necessary that the structures and buildings are not being used for military purposes. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 31.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides, with respect to occupied territory:
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, shall be treated as private property even when owned by the state. All seizure or destruction of, or wilful damage to, institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-9, § 82.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides that soldiers must do their best to ensure that buildings and property dedicated to cultural or religious purposes “are not stolen, damaged or destroyed … Thus, every attempt should be made to avoid unnecessary desecration or destruction of cultural objects and places of worship.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 9, §§ 1 and 2.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers:
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, shall be treated as private property even when owned by the state. All seizure or destruction of, or wilful damage to, institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1244.
Canada
Rule 9 of Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) states:
1. As a general rule, buildings and property dedicated to cultural or religious purposes may not be attacked. You must do your best to ensure that these buildings, or their contents, are not stolen, damaged or destroyed.
Operational Rationale
2. The destruction of, or interference with, cultural and religious objects can only serve to adversely affect your forces and possibly prolong the conflict. Peace becomes more difficult to secure if we do not respect a people’s religion or culture. Failure to honour this rule often results in retaliation and resulting damage to one’s own religious and cultural objects. Thus, every attempt should be made to avoid unnecessary desecration or destruction of cultural objects and places of worship. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 9, §§ 1–2.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 1 (Basic and team leader instruction): “The following objects enjoy special protection: … cultural objects identified as such (places of worship, universities, museums)”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 1: Formation élémentaire toutes armés (FETA), formation commune de base (FCB), certificat d’aptitude technique No. 1 (Chef d’équipe), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter II, Section II, § 2.
In Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders), the manual states: “Respect … objects bearing … the signs identifying cultural property.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter V, Section II, § 10.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 1 (Instruction of first-year trainee officers):
IV.2.1. Obligations in the planning of defensive actions
… [P]ersons participating in the preparation or conduct of defensive operations must take into account the following demands defined by the law of armed conflict.
Furthermore, these objects [cultural property] must neither be destroyed, nor damaged simply to hinder their use by civilians or to remove the civilian population. The destruction of objects must always be justified by military necessity; these objects must constitute a military objective. For the defender, destruction is only justified in order to establish measures fortifying the terrain, in the absence of any other reasonable option. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 49–50; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 71–72.
In Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers), the Teaching Manual provides:
I.3. War crimes
War crimes are equally violations of the laws and customs of war such as:
- seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 44–45.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states:
559. The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences shall be treated as private property.
561. It is prohibited to requisition, destroy or damage cultural property.
908. Any acts of theft, pillage, misappropriation, confiscation or vandalism directed against cultural property are prohibited.
919. The protection of cultural property also extends to a period of occupation. This implies that a party which keeps a territory occupied shall be bound to prohibit, prevent and, if necessary, put a stop to any theft, pillage, confiscation or other misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against cultural property.
920. It is prohibited to seize, or wilfully destroy or damage institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences; the same shall apply to historic monuments and other works of art and science. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, §§ 559, 561, 908 and 919–920.
The manual further provides that grave breaches of IHL are in particular “extensive destruction of cultural property and places of worship”. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 1209.
Germany
Germany’s IHL Manual (1996) states: “It is prohibited to confiscate, requisition or misappropriate [movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people].” 
Germany, ZDv 15/1, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, DSK VV230120023, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, June 1996, § 701.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states:
The Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954 provides that movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people (e.g. monuments of architecture, art or history, places of religious worship, books, scientific collections) may neither be attacked nor damaged in any other way.
It is further prohibited to use such objects in support of the military effort, to misappropriate them, requisition them or destroy them. Exceptions are permissible only in cases of imperative military necessity. 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten - Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten - Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 8.
Guinea
Guinea’s Soldier’s Manual (2010), under the heading “Distinctive signs”, shows an image of a building with a blue shield and states: “Do not enter … these buildings, establishments, [and] monuments.” 
Guinea, Soldier’s Manual, Ministry of National Defence, 2010, p. 13.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states: “The Geneva Conventions contain provisions banning the looting of … cultural property. Looting is regarded as a despicable act that tarnishes both the soldier and the IDF [Israel Defense Forces], leaving a serious moral blot.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 62; see also p. 35.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
Today, pillage is strictly forbidden. The Hague Rules forbid pillage both in time of battle and in conquered territory. The Geneva Conventions contain directives prohibiting the pillage of … cultural property. Pillage is considered as a despicable act, and stains the soldier and the army with a serious moral stain. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 40.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states:
The property of provinces and municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when property of the State or of other public entities in the occupied territory, shall be treated as private property.
The occupying military authority shall take all necessary measures to prohibit and punish any seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to such property. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 46.
The manual further states that an occupying power has the duty “to abstain from pillaging the cultural property” in the occupied territory. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 48(5).
Mexico
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009), in a section entitled “Basic rules of conduct in armed conflict”, states: “Respect all cultural property, including monuments, museums and places of worship.” 
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(h).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides: “Theft, pillage and destruction of cultural property are also prohibited.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. V-6, § 5.
The manual recalls that, according to Article 19 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, the provisions of that Convention on respect for cultural property apply, as a minimum, in non-international armed conflicts. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. XI-1, § 1.
Netherlands
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands states: “Cultural property may not be stolen, plundered or exposed to vandalism. It may not be requisitioned either.” 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-43.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
0523. The following objects, as cultural property, fall under the protection of the [1954] Convention [for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict]:
- movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of a people (monuments, works of art, books, etc.);
- buildings whose purpose is to preserve or exhibit this property (libraries, museums, etc.) and refuges intended to offer similar protection;
- centres containing a large amount of cultural property.
0524. The protection to be given falls into two parts: safeguarding and respecting. A State in whose territory the property is located should, even during peacetime, prepare to safeguard it against armed conflict. It can do this, for example, by building basement shelters, preparing transport and also by marking objects as described in the Convention.
0526. Respect for cultural property implies that the objects cannot be used in case of armed conflict, and that hostile acts against such property must be avoided.
Theft, pillage and destruction of cultural property is prohibited in all forms. No reprisals may be made against cultural property and buildings for religious worship.
In June 1944 the German military units withdrew from the centre of the city of Florence in Italy, to avoid involving the city centre, with its many art treasures, in the military operations. The ring road around the inner city was retained as a boundary for military transport.
0531. Cultural property may be placed under enhanced protection if it meets the following three conditions:
- it is cultural heritage of the greatest importance for humanity;
- it is protected by adequate national legal and administrative measures recognizing its exceptional cultural and historical value and ensuring the highest level of protection;
- it is not used for military purposes or to protect military sites and the relevant State has made a declaration confirming that it will not be so used.
0532. The parties to an armed conflict must ensure the immunity of cultural property that has been placed under enhanced protection, by refraining from any use of such property as objectives of attack or any use of the property or its direct environs in support of military action. Cultural property under enhanced protection can only forfeit such protection in most exceptional circumstances. Decisions on this may only be taken at the highest level of operational command. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0523–0524, 0526 and 0531–0532.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides, with reference to occupied areas:
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure or destruction of, or wilful damage to, property of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1343.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) states that during military operations, all officers and men of the armed forces shall observe the rules whereby “no property, building, etc. will be destroyed maliciously” and “churches and mosques must not be desecrated”. 
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, § 4(f)–(g).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states:
Real property belonging to local government such as hospitals and buildings dedicated to public worship, charity, education, religion, science and art should be treated as private property … Destruction or damage of such buildings is forbidden.  
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 27.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
The obligations assumed by States Parties to international humanitarian law treaties require them to ensure the proper implementation of the preventive measures and mechanisms provided for in these treaties, including, in particular, the following:
(5) Adoption of measures to protect cultural property in the event of armed conflict in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1954 and its two protocols. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 10.a.(5).
The manual defines cultural property as follows: “Cultural property includes both religious and secular objects. Historic monuments, works of art and places of worship, which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples, enjoy full protection.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 100.d.
The manual includes “personnel assigned to the protection of cultural property” amongst those listed in its definition of the term “Protected Persons”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, Chapter 9, Glossary of Terms.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
a. … [T]he obligations assumed by States Parties to international humanitarian law treaties require them to ensure the proper implementation of the preventive measures and mechanisms provided for in these treaties, including, in particular, the following:
(5) Adoption of measures to protect cultural property in the event of armed conflict in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1954 and its two protocols. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, §§ 10(a)(5), pp. 221–222.
In its Glossary of Terms, the manual also states:
Cultural objects: This term refers to movable and immovable objects that constitute the cultural heritage of mankind to whose creation each people contributes. Given their importance to all peoples in the world, international law seeks to guarantee the protection of such objects in armed conflict.
The following objects are included: historic objects, works of art, buildings or places of worship, archeological sites, museums, places of deposit, libraries, archives and collections. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, pp. 397–398.
The manual further states: “Cultural property can be religious or secular in nature. Historic monuments, works of art and places of worship which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples enjoy full protection.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 91(d), p. 293.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that, during occupation: “Works of art and the property of institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education and science must not be confiscated.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.7.c.(4).
The manual further states:
Cultural property both in the State’s own territory and in enemy territory must be respected. It is prohibited to carry out any hostile act against them. These obligations must be observed except in cases of imperative military necessity. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 4.5.b.(2).(b).
Sweden
Sweden’s Military Manual (1976) states that it is forbidden to pillage or seize cultural property such as museum collections, churches, historic monuments and other cultural sites. 
Sweden, Folkrätten – Internationella regler i krig, Blhang Svensk soldat, 1976, p. 30.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states that respect for cultural property implies that it is prohibited “to use, steal, pillage or misappropriate cultural property”. The manual further states: “The property of municipalities, institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, must be treated as private property.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Articles 53, commentary, and 169.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
14.2 Cultural property
207 In the event of an armed conflict, cultural property of national importance is marked with the blue and white shield for the protection of cultural property, the distinctive sign to facilitate their identification. It must be respected by the armed forces. Destruction and pillaging of such property are prohibited. Their use for military purposes must in principle be avoided.
210 As a precautionary measure prior to a conflict, the competent civil defence units must remove and secure mobile cultural property. 
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, §§ 159(3), 207 and 210.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Ten Basic Rules for the Protection of Cultural Property (2013) states:
Term - Definition of cultural property (CP)
CP includes property and objects that are of great importance as regards cultural heritage, for example:
- structures of artistic and historic value, art and historic monuments
- sacred buildings (churches, monasteries, temples, mosques, synagogues)
- museums, large libraries, archives, collections
- archaeological sites (on land or under water)
- works of art, historical manuscripts, valuable books
- relics from the history of technology, industry and traffic.
Rule No. 1 Protection of cultural property during war times
Cultural property requires special protection in military conflicts. The Law of Armed Conflict provides for three types of protection during armed conflicts:
1. CP of national importance is granted general protection as CP. This is guaranteed by the state. The relevant information is stated in the “Swiss inventory of cultural property of national importance”.
2. A limited number of CPs are under special protection, e.g. Vatican City. At the request of a country UNESCO may consider entry in the “International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection” to grant special protection.
3. A small number of CPs that are of particular importance as world-cultural-heritage are under enhanced protection. In times of armed conflict, at the request of a country enhanced protection is granted by the (international) Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
Rule No. 3 Respect and protection
I respect and protect CP.
Protecting means:
- preventing damage to CP during combat;
- taking appropriate precautionary measures.
Rule No. 4 Cultural property personnel, material, means of transport and installations
I will spare and respect personnel, installations, material and means of transport involved in the protection of cultural property, except if they are used in a military manner against me and my fellow soldiers.
Rule No. 5 Theft and damage
I am not allowed to steal, damage or destroy CP.
I may not engage in any kind of retaliation against CP.
Rule No. 9 Punishment of violations of the regulations on the protection of cultural property
My breach of the regulations on the protection of cultural property will result in disciplinary measures or prosecution under the Military Criminal Code.
A serious violation of the protection of cultural property is considered a war crime.  
Switzerland, Ten Basic Rules for the Protection of Cultural Property, Regulation 51.00705e, issued on the basis of Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, signed on 21 March 2013, entry into force on 1 July 2013, Definition and Rules No. 1, 3–5 and 9.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides:
611. Property belonging to local, that is, provincial, county, municipal and parochial, authorities, … as well as the property of institutions dedicated to public worship, charity, education, science and art – such as churches, chapels, synagogues, mosques, almshouses, hospitals, schools, museums, libraries, and the like – even when state property, must be treated as private property. Troops, sick and wounded, horses, and stores may therefore be housed in buildings of that nature, but such use is justified only by military necessity. Any seizure or destruction of, or wilful damage to, the property of such institutions, or to historic monuments or works of science and art, is forbidden, as is, generally, any destruction of property which is not required by imperative military necessity. Thus, it would not be improper to place sick and wounded in a church if no accommodation could immediately be found elsewhere, but a consecrated building should not be used for the purpose of barracks, stables, or stores, unless it is absolutely necessary … In 1870, the German occupation authorities housed 9,000 French prisoners of war in the Cathedral of Orleans.
613. Other movable public property, not susceptible of use for military operations, as well as that belonging to the institutions mentioned above, which is to be treated as private property, must be respected and cannot be appropriated, for instance, crown jewels, pictures, collections of works of art, and archives. However, papers connected with the war may be seized, even when forming part of archives. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 611 and footnote 4 and § 613.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
With regard to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, the UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “The detailed rules of the Convention do not apply to states not party to it, but the general principles of immunity of cultural property … do apply to those states.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, p. 71, fn. 114.
The manual further states:
States must avoid using cultural property for military purposes, must not direct hostilities against it, and must protect it from theft, misappropriation, vandalism, requisitioning, or reprisals. Occupying forces also have a duty to safeguard and preserve cultural property. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.26.3.
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual states: “[T]he law also prohibits … the stealing, misappropriating, confiscation of or wilful damage to cultural property”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.18.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) reproduces Article 56 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and states that the property included in this rule “may be requisitioned in case of necessity for quartering the troops and the sick and wounded, storage of supplies and material, housing of vehicles and equipment, and generally as prescribed for private property”. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 405.
United States of America
The Annotated Supplement to the US Naval Handbook (1997) states: “While the United States is not a Party to the 1954 Hague Convention [for the Protection of Cultural Property], it considers it to reflect customary law”. 
United States, Annotated Supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, prepared by the Oceans Law and Policy Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, November 1997, § 8.5.1.6, footnote 122.
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Code of Conduct for Combatants (1993), under the heading “Distinctive signs”, shows an image of a building with a blue shield and states: “Do not enter … these buildings, establishments, monuments.” 
Zimbabwe, Code of Conduct for Combatants, Joint publication of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and the International Committee of the Red Cross Regional Delegation in Harare, 1993, p. 13.
Belgium
Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:
The grave breaches set out in Article 15 of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, adopted in The Hague on 26 March 1999, committed in time of armed conflict, as defined in Article 18(1)(2) of the 1954 Hague Convention and in Article 22 of the said Second Protocol, and listed below, constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title, when such breaches endanger, by act or omission, objects protected by these Conventions, without prejudice to criminal provisions applicable to breaches committed out of negligence:
3. extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property protected under the Convention and the Second Protocol. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 3(3).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
The grave breaches set out in Article 15 of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, adopted in The Hague on 26 March 1999, committed in time of armed conflict, as defined in Article 18(1)(2) of the 1954 Hague Convention and in Article 22 of the said Second Protocol, and listed below, constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title, when such breaches endanger, by act or omission, objects protected by these Conventions, without prejudice to criminal provisions applicable to breaches committed out of negligence:
3. extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property protected under the Convention and the Second Protocol. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 3(3).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998), in a part dealing with “Criminal offences against humanity and international law”, provides:
(1) Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law at the time of war or armed conflict, destroys cultural or historical monuments, buildings or establishments devoted to science, art, education or humanitarian purposes, shall be punished …
(2) If a clearly distinguishable object, which has been under special protection of international law as the people’s cultural and spiritual heritage, has been destroyed by an act defined in paragraph 1 of this Code, the perpetrator shall be punished [more severely]. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 164.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states:
(1) Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law in time of war or armed conflict, destroys cultural, historical or religious monuments, buildings or establishments devoted to science, art, education, humanitarian or religious purpose,
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of between one and ten years.
(2) If a clearly distinguishable object, which has been under special protection of the international law as people’s cultural and spiritual heritage, has been destroyed by the criminal offence referred to in paragraph 1 of this Code, the perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than five years. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 183; see also Articles 173(2)(a) and (b) and 179(2)(d).
Bulgaria
Bulgaria’s Penal Code (1968), as amended in 1999, in a part dealing with “crimes against the laws and customs of waging war”, provides for the punishment of
any person who steals, unlawfully appropriates or conceals [cultural or historical monuments and objects, works of art, buildings and equipment intended for cultural, scientific or other humanitarian purposes], or imposes contribution or confiscation with respect to such objects. 
Bulgaria, Penal Code, 1968, as amended in 1999, Article 414(2).
Cambodia
Cambodia’s Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers (2001), as amended in 2004, provides:
The Extraordinary Chambers shall have the power to bring to trial all Suspects most responsible for the destruction of cultural property during armed conflict pursuant to the 1954 Hague Convention for Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and which were committed during the period from 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979. 
Cambodia, Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers, 2001, as amended in 2004, Article 7.
China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “plundering of historical, artistic or other cultural treasures” constitutes a war crime. 
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(37).
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that a war crime is committed by “[w]hoever, in violation of the rules of international law, in time of war or armed conflict, destroys cultural objects or facilities dedicated to science, art, education or those established for humanitarian purposes”. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended to 2006, Article 167(1).
The Criminal Code provides a heavier penalty if “a clearly recognizable facility is destroyed which belongs to the cultural and spiritual heritage of the people and which is under the special protection of international law”. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended to 2006, Article 167(2).
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
Estonia
Under Estonia’s Penal Code (2001), “damaging or illegal appropriation of cultural monuments, churches, or other structures or objects of religious significance, works of art or science, archives of cultural value, libraries, museums or scientific collections, which are not being used for military purposes” is a war crime. 
Estonia, Penal Code, 2001, § 107.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 270.- War Crimes against the Civilian Population.
Whoever, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation organizes, orders or engages in, against the civilian population and in violation of the rules of public international law and of international humanitarian conventions:
(j) the destruction, removal, … rendering useless or appropriation of the historical monuments, works of art, or places of worship…
is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from five years to twenty-five years, or, in more serious cases, with life imprisonment or death. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 270.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states: “Combatants shall … respect cultural property wherever it is located, unless military necessity imperatively requires the derogation of this rule.” 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-10.
Georgia
Georgia’s Law on Cultural Heritage (2007) states:
Article 1. Purpose of the Law.
Th[is] law aims to protect the cultural heritage and to regulate the legal relations arising in this field.
Article 2. Application of the Law.
The present Law applies to the cultural heritage existent on the whole territory of Georgia.
Georgia [also] protects the cultural heritage of Georgia situated outside [its] territory …
Article 5. The Authority of the Ministry of Culture and Monument Protection of Georgia in the Field of Cultural Heritage.
Within the authority established by the Georgian legislation, the Ministry:
m) During hostilities or a state of emergency, protects the cultural heritage in accordance with the rules of international law.
Article 31. Responsibility for the Damage Inflicted on or the Destruction of Cultural Heritage.
Intentional impact on the monument that causes irreparable damage or destruction entails [individual] criminal responsibility … in accordance with Georgian legislation. 
Georgia, Law on Cultural Heritage, 2007, Articles 1, 2, 5(m) and 31.
Georgia
Georgia’s Law on Occupied Territories (2008) states:
The responsibility of the Russian Federation, as the State carrying out the military occupation [of Georgian territory], to protect cultural heritage in the Occupied Territories shall be determined in accordance with the norms and principles of international law. 
Georgia, Law on Occupied Territories, 2008, Article 7(4).
Hungary
Hungary’s Law on the Protection of Cultural Property (2006) states:
Breach of the international protection of cultural property
Section 160/B.
(1) Any person who, at the time of war:
c) makes cultural property under international protection the object of theft or pillage;
d) makes cultural property under international protection the object of destruction or vandalism,
is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment between five to ten years.
(3) The punishment shall be imprisonment between five to fifteen years if the crime referred to in Subsection (1) is committed in connection with cultural property placed under special or enhanced protection by international convention. 
Hungary, Law on the Protection of Cultural Property, 2006, Section 160/B.
Italy
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides:
The property of provinces and municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when property of the State or of other public entities in the occupied territory, shall be treated as private property.
The occupying military authority shall take all necessary measures to prohibit and punish any seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to such property. 
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 61.
Lithuania
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, the “plundering of national treasures in occupied or annexed territory” constitutes a war crime. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 339.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Law on the Repression of War Crimes (1947) provides for the punishment of “the taking … by any means, from the territory of Luxembourg, of objects of whatever nature”. 
Luxembourg, Law on the Repression of War Crimes, 1947, Article 2(6).
Netherlands
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, “destroying or appropriating on a large scale cultural property that is under the protection of [the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property and the 1999 Second Protocol thereto]”, as well as “theft, pillaging or appropriation of – or acts of vandalism directed against – cultural property under the protection of the [1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property]”, are crimes when committed in an international armed conflict. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(4)(c) and (e).
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes a soldier who commits “any act of pillage or appropriation of … cultural property, as well as any act of vandalism against such property and the requisitioning of those located in territory under military occupation”. 
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Article 61.
Peru
Peru’s General Law on the Cultural Heritage of the Nation (2004) states:
The State of Peru, through the National Institute for Culture, the National Library and the General Archive of the Nation, shall adopt the necessary measures to protect and preserve all goods forming part of the National Cultural Heritage in case of armed conflict, in accordance with international law and international humanitarian law. 
Peru, General Law on the Cultural Heritage of the Nation, 2004, Article 26.
Peru
Peru’s Regulations to the General Law on the Cultural Heritage of the Nation (2006) states:
In the event of an armed conflict, civilian and military and/or police personnel shall refrain from committing any act of hostility, by way of … seizure that directly affects the cultural property of the [Peruvian] nation and/or of another State…
1. They will proceed to prohibit, avoid and if necessary put a stop to any form of theft, pillage, hiding or misappropriation of property, as well as any acts of vandalism directed against it. 
Peru, Regulations to the General Law on the Cultural Heritage of the Nation, 2006, Article 78(1).
Poland
Poland’s Law on the Safeguard of Cultural Property (1962) defines cultural property:
Cultural property in the meaning of the present Law is every object, movable or immovable, old or contemporary, of importance for the cultural heritage and development, because of its historical, scientific or artistic value. 
Poland, Law on the Safeguard of Cultural Property, 1962, Article 2.
The Law further states: “The safeguarding of cultural property consists in protecting it against destruction, pillage, devastation, disappearance or carrying abroad.” 
Poland, Law on the Safeguard of Cultural Property, 1962, Article 3(1)(2).
Poland
Poland’s Order on the Protection of Cultural Property (1995) states:
3.1. The protection of cultural property in situations of threat to the security of the State and of armed conflict in relation to:
1) movable cultural property consists in:
a) placing and securing it against destruction in shelters within the organizational unit and organizing appropriate protection;
b) dispersing it among pre-planned shelters in the surroundings of their normal exposition;
c) evacuating it to pre-planned shelters if in the surroundings there are no possibilities to shelter it or in case of direct danger of hostilities;
d) sheltering of the most precious objects abroad;
2) immovable property consists in:
- conducting an inventory and documentation, as well as technical and engineering works.
The Order further states:
6.1. Plans for the protection of cultural property in situations of threat to the security of the State and of armed conflict shall be prepared at the level of organizational units, of voivodships [provinces] and of the State.
2. These plans constitute part of the plans of civil defence.
3. The plan for the protection of cultural property in situations of threat to the security of the State and of armed conflict shall consist of two parts:
1) the plan for the protection of movable cultural property;
2) the plan for securing immovable cultural property.
7. Plans for the protection of cultural property shall be co-ordinated with the respective Inspectorate of Civil Defence. 
Poland, Order on the Protection of Cultural Property, 1995, §§ 3.1, 6.1 and 7.
Poland
Poland’s Penal Code (1997) provides:
1. Any person who, in violation of international law, destroys, damages or pillages cultural property in occupied or controlled territory or in combat area, shall be punished with imprisonment for a time from one year to ten years.
2. If the offence is directed against cultural property of particular importance, the perpetrator shall be punished with imprisonment for a time not shorter than three years. 
Poland, Penal Code, 1997, Article 125.
Poland
Poland’s Act on the Protection and Preservation of Historical Buildings and Monuments (2003) states:
1. The minister responsible for culture and preservation of national heritage matters shall develop the national programme for preservation and protection of historical buildings and monuments in the event of an armed conflict or crisis situation and coordinate the implementation of tasks aimed to safeguard historical buildings and monuments against the effects of threats ensuing from crisis situations.
2. The minister responsible for culture and preservation of national heritage matters shall, by issuing a regulation, determine the manner and methods of preservation of historical buildings and monuments to be used in the event of an armed conflict or crisis situation by indicating the method of carrying out the preservation works, and also considering the duties of competent administration bodies and organizational units maintaining the ownership of historical buildings and monuments.
3. The minister responsible for culture and preservation of national heritage matters shall submit to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation an application for the entry in the International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection with a view to ensuring protection thereof in accordance with the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict signed on 14 May 1954 in the Hague (Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland of 2003, No. 46, item 212). 
Poland, Act on the Protection and Preservation of Historical Buildings and Monuments, 2003, Article 88.
Poland
Poland’s Regulation on the Protection of Historic Monuments in the Event of an Armed Conflict or State of Emergency (2004) states:
1. The protection of historic monuments in the event of an armed conflict or state of emergency shall comprise planning, development and implementation of preventive, documentary, protective, emergency and maintenance measures designed to preserve such property against damage, destruction or loss.
2. Measures specified under subparagraph 1 above shall be implemented by means of:
1) prevention and introduction of preparatory measures – in time preceding the occurrence of an armed conflict or state of emergency;
2) emergency readiness – introduced in time of increasing, imminent and direct danger by appropriate emergency management authorities …;
3) responding – in time of occurrence and duration of an armed conflict or state of emergency;
4) safeguarding and documentation – upon cessation of hostilities.
4. Should an armed conflict or state of emergency occur, and should certain envisaged protection measures be incomplete, the head of an organizational unit in whose custody particular historic monuments are placed, shall make every effort to safeguard them against destruction, damage or loss.
5. Protection plans shall be developed according to “Instruction of Preparation and Implementation of Historic Monuments Protection Plans in the event of an Armed Conflict or State of Emergency”, annexed hereto. 
Poland, Regulation on the Protection of Historic Monuments in the Event of an Armed Conflict or State of Emergency, 2004, §§ 1 and 3.
Portugal
Portugal’s Penal Code (1996) provides:
A person who, in violation of rules or principles of general or common international law, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, destroys or damages, without military necessity, cultural or historical monuments or institutions dedicated to science, the arts, culture, religion … shall be punished by a prison sentence of between three and ten years. 
Portugal, Penal Code, 1996, Article 242.
Romania
Romania’s Penal Code (1968) provides for the punishment of “robbery or appropriation of any kind of … cultural heritage from territories under military occupation”. 
Romania, Penal Code, 1968, Article 360.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:
Article: 8
A war crime is one of the following acts, committed during armed conflicts against persons or property protected under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and its Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977:
4° extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, such as buildings dedicated to religion, charity or education, and historical buildings dedicated to the arts and science;
Article: 9
Shall be punished by one of the following penalties any person having committed one of the war crimes provided for in Article 8 of this law:
3° imprisonment for five (5) to ten (10) years where he has committed a crime provided for in point 4°, 5°, 13°, 14° or 15° of Article 8 of this law. 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Articles 8–9.
Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states:
Committing an act or activity prohibited by any of the following conventions or protocols constitutes a crime under international law:
1. the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict … 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-5(1).
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states:
(1) Whoever in violation of international law in time of war or armed conflict destroys cultural or historic monuments or other objects of culture or religious facilities or institutions or facilities intended for the arts, sciences, education or humanitarian causes, or orders such acts committed, shall be punished by imprisonment of three to fifteen years.
(2) If the offence specified in paragraph 1 of this Article results in destruction of a cultural facility or institution enjoying special protection under international law, the offender shall be punished by imprisonment of five to fifteen years. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 383; see also Article 372(2).
Spain
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) punishes a soldier who commits “any act of pillage or appropriation of … cultural property, as well as any act of vandalism against such property and the requisitioning of those located in territory under military occupation”. 
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 77(7).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, states:
1. Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict commits or orders to be committed any of the following acts shall be punished with four to six years’ imprisonment:
c. Theft, pillage, large-scale misappropriation of, or acts of vandalism against, cultural property or places of worship …
2. When … [there] is a misuse … [of] cultural property or places of worship which are protected by special agreements or are under enhanced protection … a higher sentence can be imposed.
In all other cases mentioned in the above article, the higher sentence can be imposed when extensive and important destructions are caused to the property, objects or installations or [the acts] are of extreme gravity. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 613(1)(c) and (2).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended in 2007, states:
Any person who, without the right to do so, has destroyed or damaged cultural property or material placed under the protection of the sign of cultural property,
is to be punished with three years’ or more imprisonment or with a monetary penalty or, in less serious cases, with a year imprisonment or less. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended in 2007, Article 110.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Law on the Protection of Cultural Property (1966) states that protection includes respect for cultural property, which means, inter alia, “to prohibit, prevent and put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation, and any acts of vandalism; [and] to refrain from the requisitioning of movable cultural property”. 
Switzerland, Law on the Protection of Cultural Property, 1966, Article 2(3).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Law on the Protection of Cultural Property (1966), as amended in 2008, states:
1. The protection of cultural property, in the sense of the present law, includes the safeguarding and respect for cultural property in case of armed conflict.
3. The respect for cultural property comprises:
- prohibiting, preventing and putting a stop to any form of theft or misappropriation as well as to any act of vandalism;
- prohibiting the requisitioning of movable cultural property. 
Switzerland, Law on the Protection of Cultural Property, 1966, as amended in 2008, Article 2(1) and (3).
Ukraine
Under Ukraine’s Criminal Code (2001), “pillage of national treasures in occupied territories” is a punishable “crime against peace, security of mankind and international legal order”. 
Ukraine, Criminal Code, 2001, Article 438.
United States of America
In 2008, the US Senate approved the ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, subject to certain understandings and a declaration:
Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent Subject to Understandings and a Declaration.
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, concluded on May 14, 1954 (Treaty Doc. 106–1(A)), subject to the understandings of section 2 and the declaration of section 3.
Section 2. Understandings.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following understandings, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification:
(4) It is the understanding of the United States of America that, as is true for all civilian objects, the primary responsibility for the protection of cultural objects rests with the Party controlling that property, to ensure that it is properly identified and that it is not used for an unlawful purpose.
Section 3. Declaration.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following declaration:
With the exception of the provisions that obligate the United States to impose sanctions on persons who commit or order to be committed a breach of the Convention, this Convention is self-executing. This Convention does not confer private rights enforceable in United States courts. 
United States, Advice and Consent to ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, 2008, Sections 1–3.
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:
39. … commit theft, damage or other acts of vandalism against [cultural objects protected by international law]. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.39.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2009, in the Basele Lutula and Others case, the Military Garrison Court of Kisangani convicted Mai-Mai militia members of various crimes, including destruction of property. The Court stated:
Destruction and damage without malicious intent (article 113 of CPL II [Penal Code])
Pursuant to article 113 of the Penal Code enacted by the ordinance of 28 February 1913: “whoever, even without malicious intent, destroys or damages, without any right or title, … movable or immovable property is liable to punishment of up to seven days’ imprisonment and a fine … ”.
It follows from this definition that this offence requires the combination of the following constitutive elements: protected objects, a material act and a moral element.
Article 113 can be applied with regard to [the following protected objects]:
- immovable property (sites, caves, caverns, land containing pre-historic sites, remains of ancient buildings etc.) or movable property (drawings, paintings, statues, utensils [or] engraving tools made by natives which have an archaeological, artistic or educational interest; [see] decree of 16 August 1939 regarding the protection of sites, monuments and production of art).
The law does not require that the destroyed or damaged property belongs to another person.
The material act consists of destroying or damaging the above-mentioned objects as specified by law.
The moral element which characterizes this offence … is a simple [and] general one. The agent must act voluntarily but without malicious intent or without title or right. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Garrison Court of Kisangani, Basele Lutula and Others case, Judgment, 3 June 2009, pp. 13–15.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2010, in the Barnaba Yonga Tshopena case, the Military Garrison Court of Ituri-Bunia convicted a leader of the Front for Patriotic Resistance in Ituri (FRPI) of several war crimes, including the pillaging of schools, churches and objects belonging to charitable organizations. The Court stated:
100 … [T]he defendant … is accused of committing the war crime of pillaging in Nyankunde and Groupement Musedzo in the territory of Irumu, in Ituri, respectively on 5 and 12 September 2002 or around these dates, in violation of article 8(2)(e)(v) of the … [1998 ICC] Statute …
101 … [I]n view of the [2000 ICC] Elements of Crimes, the following elements must be fulfilled so this offence is committed:
i) the perpetrator must appropriate certain property; ii) the perpetrator must have the intention to deprive the owner of the property and to appropriate it for private or personal use; iii) the appropriation must be carried out without the consent of the owner; iv) the conduct must take place in the context of and be associated with an armed conflict not of an international character; and finally v) the perpetrator must be aware of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
102 … [I]n the present case, during the assaults launched against Nyankunde and Groupement Musedzo respectively on 5 and 12 September by FRPI Ngiti combatants, certain property was indeed transferred from the population of those places under the control of the attackers, who appropriated [such property] without the consent of the owners, who were silent because they had either died or fled.
103 … [T]he evidence produced before the Court … establishes that FRPI Ngiti combatants intentionally pillaged property in the Collectivité Chefferie de Nyankunde and Groupement Musedzo after having taken control over these places. Several pillaged objects … were taken to the residence of the accused … where they were shared …
107 … [T]he pillaging continued for several days. It was common to see the attackers, assisted by women and children, removing part of the roofs of the houses, breaking down [entrance] doors and appropriating various pieces of furniture … Incidentally, even schools … [and] churches … were not spared from the pillaging.
108 … [T]his pillaging took place on the occasion of the attacks launched … on 5 September 2002 against Nyankunde and on 12 September 2002 against Groupement Musedzo within the context of an armed conflict not of an international character.
109 … [T]hroughout the period when the pillaging took place, the FRPI leaders who ordered the above-mentioned attacks, as well as the combatants of this political-military movement who materially committed the attacks, were aware of the existence of an armed conflict of this nature in Ituri. This proves the existence, in the present case, of the intentional or mental element which constitutes the special dolus in conformity with the requirements of intention and knowledge established by article 30 of the [1998 ICC] … Statute.
110 … After examining … the evidence … , the Court … is convinced that, on the occasion of the attacks launched respectively on 5 and 12 September 2002 against Collectivité Chefferie de Nyankunde and Groupement Musedzo, followed by their prolonged occupation by the FRPI Ngiti combatants, the latter indeed appropriated, for their private or personal use, objects belonging to the civilian populations, as well as to charitable organizations … This includes livestock, electronic household appliances, motorcycles and bicycles, furniture, clothing, money, and even roof parts, doors and windows snatched from public buildings and private dwellings, without the consent of the legitimate owners and without the justification of any military necessity.
111 … [T]herefore, this Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the war crime of pillaging was intentionally committed in the Collectivité Cheffereie de Nyankunde and Groupement Musedzo by the Ngiti combatants of the armed militia FRPI with the support, authorization and/or blessing of the leaders of this political-military movement, including the defendant. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Garrison Court of Ituri-Bunia, Barnaba Yonga Tshopena case, Judgment, 9 July 2010, §§ 100–103 and 107–111.
Regarding the applicable law, the Court stated:
T]he constitutional provisions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, namely articles 153(4) and 215 of 18 February 2006 [Constitution (2006)], authorize both civil and military courts and tribunals to apply duly ratified international agreements and treaties, and give them higher authority than domestic legislation. This constitutional authorization combined with the self-executing nature of the … [1998 ICC] Statute justify the direct application of this treaty by Congolese courts and tribunals. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Garrison Court of Ituri-Bunia, Barnaba Yonga Tshopena case, Judgment, 9 July 2010, § 63.
France
In the Lingenfelder case in 1947, the accused was charged with destruction of public monuments. It was shown that in May 1941 the accused, acting upon orders of a German official, used four horses to pull down the monument erected by the inhabitants of Arry, Moselle to fellow citizens who died during the First World War, destroyed the marble slabs bearing the names of the dead, and broke the statue of Joan of Arc. In its judgment, the French Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz held that these acts constituted violations of the laws and customs of war and were punishable war crimes. The accused was convicted under the terms of Article 257 of the French Penal Code which covers in French municipal law the acts prohibited under Article 56 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, Lingenfelder case, Judgment, 11 March 1947.
United States of America
In the Von Leeb case (The German High Command Trial) before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, former high-ranking officers in the German army and navy, were charged, inter alia, with war crimes and crimes against humanity against civilians in that they participated in atrocities such as plunder of public and private property. The Tribunal found that, on 17 September 1940, Keitel issued an order to the military commander in occupied France providing for the illegal seizure of property and its transfer to Germany. The order provided that the Reichsminister “is entitled to transport to Germany cultural goods which appear valuable to him and to safeguard them there. The Führer has reserved for himself the decision as to their use.” 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Von Leeb case (The High Command Trial), Judgment, 28 October 1948.
United States of America
In its judgment in the Weizsaecker case (The Ministries Trial) in 1949, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg referred to Article 56 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and ruled that all seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of religious or charitable character, historic monuments, works of art and science was forbidden and should be the subject of legal proceedings. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Weizsaecker case (The Ministries Trial), Judgment, 14 April 1949.
Afghanistan
In 2012, the Office of the President of Afghanistan issued a press release entitled “President Karzai calls on Taliban to stop pursuing objectives of outsiders, but rather begin a life of dignity and honor under Afghanistan[’s] Constitution”, which stated: “In his Eid remarks, the President urged the Taliban and other armed opposition to renounce violence and killings in Afghanistan and to stop destroying mosques, … and schools.” 
Afghanistan, Office of the President, “President Karzai calls on Taliban to stop pursuing objectives of outsiders, but rather begin a life of dignity and honor under Afghanistan[’s] Constitution”, Press Release, 26 October 2012.
Azerbaijan
In 1992, in a letter to the President of the UN Security Council and to the UN Secretary-General, Azerbaijan referred to data provided to the UN fact-finding mission in the region concerning illegal actions by Armenia and included the damage caused to and destruction of places of worship. 
Azerbaijan, Letters dated 11 June 1992 to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24103, 16 June 1992, p. 1.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Report on the Practice of Bosnia and Herzegovina notes that members of the forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina “did not commit any criminal acts of endangering cultural and religious facilities” during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. It gives as an example the order issued by the Commander-in-chief on 17 December 1993 allowing Catholic priests unimpeded passage to visit the Franciscan monastery in Fojnica. The report further recalls another order issued by the same commander on 30 June 1994 that the facility in Guca Gora be emptied, secured and prepared to be handed over to Catholic priests. 
Report on the Practice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2000, Chapter 4.3.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) in 2006, the agent for Bosnia and Herzegovina stated:
Under the Hague Regulations and customary international law, institutions dedicated to religion are protected. This protection is restated in both Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions. This protection can be lost if the buildings are used for military purposes, but I intend to show you during the course of my pleadings on this subject that the destruction was very often carried out in places which were under Bosnian Serb control and thus the fighting for control of those places had indeed stopped. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 1 March 2006, Verbatim Record CR 2006/5, p. 45, § 4.
China
In 1973, in a statement on the return of plundered works of art, China stated:
The precious cultural heritage of the Chinese people also suffered from plunder and destruction by imperialists and colonialists. In the past 100 years, starting from 1840, troops of the imperialist powers invaded China many times, and each time the cultural heritage of the Chinese people suffered tremendously. They took away what they could, smashed those items which they could not take as a whole and then took away the pieces, destroyed and burned what they eventually could not take away. Apart from the large scale plunder and destruction by the invading troops, China’s historical relics and art treasures were also stolen by adventurers of different kinds by fair or foul means. 
China, Statement on the Issue of Return of Plundered Works of Art to its Country, by Comrade Wang Runsheng, 18 December 1973, Selected Documents of the Chinese Delegation to the United Nations, The People’s Press, Beijing, 1973, pp. 56–57.
China
In 1977, in a statement on human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories, China stated that the Israeli Authority had
rudely interfered with the religious beliefs of the Arab people, had of lot of old buildings in Jerusalem pulled down and the occupants moved elsewhere, and damaged the precious Arab and Muslim historical relics. 
China, Statement on the Issue of Human Rights in Israeli Occupied Territories, by Zhou Nan, Chinese Representative, 18 November 1977, Selected Documents of the Chinese Delegation to the United Nations, The People’s Press, Beijing, 1977, pp. 92–93.
Djibouti
In 2010, in the History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, under the heading “Basic rules of IHL” and in a section on “Specific protection”, stated: “Cultural property shall be respected and protected.ˮ 
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, 2010, p. 194.
El Salvador
In 2009, in its sixth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, El Salvador stated:
191. The Inter-institutional Committee on International Humanitarian Law in El Salvador (CIDIH-ES) disseminates information in various sectors of the population on international humanitarian law and its application in armed conflicts …
192. These activities, which have helped to spread information on international humanitarian law, have focused on a culture of peace to prevent war and [encourage] respect for the application of international humanitarian norms in times of armed conflict; this includes the protection of cultural property. 
El Salvador, Sixth periodic report to the human rights committee, 2 June 2009, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SLV/6, submitted 13 January 2009, §§ 191–192.
She … emphasized, regarding the protection of cultural heritage objects … lost or damaged during conflict, that they need to be protected within new law since Law No. 11 of 2010 on Cultural Heritage does not regulate conservation in conflict situations. Conservation is only conducted in a state of peace. Therefore, it should be anticipated in the event of an undesirable situation. 
Indonesia, Ministry of Law and Human Rights, “National law development plan in relation to the direction of national legislation in the field of humanitarian law”, Press Release, 25 December 2014.
Islamic Republic of Iran
In 1991, in a letter to the UN Secretary-General, the Islamic Republic of Iran expressed alarm at the “reported desecration of holy shrines”. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Letter dated 22 March 1991 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/22379, 23 March 1991, p. 1.
Rwanda
According to the Report on the Practice of Rwanda, cultural property is protected by Rwanda’s armed forces and the pillage of cultural and religious goods is prohibited.  
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Replies by army officers to a questionnaire, 1997, Chapter 4.3.
Somalia
In 1998, an ICRC publication entitled “Spared from the Spear” recorded traditional Somali practice in warfare as follows:
[I]n any war, places of worship and religious study e.g. mosques, Koranic schools, saints’ shrines etc., were not violated. … Also, the destruction or looting of mosques and other religious places was something that had never taken place prior to the current civil war. 
Somalia, Spared from the Spear, 1998, p. 51.
In 2011, in its comments on the concluding observations of the Human Rights Council concerning Somalia’s report, the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia referred to “Spared from the Spear” as its “own Geneva Conventions”:
In times of hostilities, the Biri-Ma-Geydo (Spared from the Spear), i.e. Somalia’s own “Geneva Conventions”[,] which existed long before the adoption of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, mitigated and regulated the conduct of clan hostilities and the treatment of immune groups. 
Somalia, Comments by the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia on the concluding observations of the Human Rights Council concerning the report of Somalia, submitted 21 September 2011, § 4.
Spain
In 2010, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Spain stated:
Article 85 entitled “Principle of Humanity”, contained in Title IV on Operations [of the Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009)] clearly embodies the spirit of the [1949] Geneva Convention and its [1977] Additional Protocols, as it provides that “[the] … conduct [of members of the armed forces] in any conflict or military operation must conform to the applicable rules of the international treaties on international humanitarian law to which Spain is a party”.
That is further developed in Chapter VI on Ethics in Operations, which goes into specific duties under international humanitarian law … the protection of cultural property. 
Spain, Report on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 5 May 2010, Section 2.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Cultural property
Cultural property includes movable and immovable objects that are important to the cultural heritage of humanity, and the buildings in which they are stored or displayed. In the event of an Armed conflict cultural property is accorded special protection under international law. Not only are hostile acts against cultural property prohibited, but it is also forbidden to make use of such property in support of military operations or as a target of Reprisals. An exception is only foreseen for cases of imperative military necessity. Protected items are marked by a distinctive sign. The way cultural property is to be treated is regulated in the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954 and its two Additional Protocols. The First Protocol concerns the protection of cultural property during an occupation (Occupied territory), while the second strengthens the protection, extending it to non-international Armed conflicts, and also defines individual criminal responsibility. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 14–15.
Switzerland
In 2010, in the preface to the inventory of cultural property of national importance, Switzerland’s head of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports stated:
The bombing of Dubrovnik and Mostar, cities forming part of world heritage, during the Balkans war at the beginning of the 90s, the destruction of the Buddha statues by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 or the pillage of museums in Iraq have shown the extent to which cultural property can be the target of armed attacks and terrorist acts.
Cultural property has an important symbolic and identity value for the population. It is therefore necessary to protect it to the extent possible from damage and destruction. This task falls to the protection of cultural property, which has military origins: it was the massive destruction of monuments and museums during World War II that led to the establishment of systematic protection measures. The Hague Convention of 14 May 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, put into effect by UNESCO, is in certain respects its fundamental charter. By ratifying that text in 1962, Switzerland has engaged itself, like the about 120 other signatory States, to plan protection measures for cultural property already in time of peace. At the national level, legal prescriptions protect cultural property against natural dangers, fire, theft and vandalism.
Implementing that legislation requires an assessment of the main buildings, collections and archaeological sites of the country. 
Switzerland, Inventory of Cultural Property, 4 May 2010, p. 10.
Switzerland
In 2011, in response to a motion in Parliament, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
By becoming a party to the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict … Switzerland undertook to respect and protect cultural property on its territory and on the territory of other States Parties. The Federal law on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict of 6 October 1966 (LPBC; RS 520.3) and its implementing ordinance (OPBC; RS 520.31) insofar provide for the general legal framework This protection is based on the one hand on precautionary measures in time of peace, and on the other on the respect for Swiss and foreign cultural property in the event of armed conflict.
In October 2010, the Federal Office for Civil Protection (FOCP) … has started to work on the revision of the Federal law on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, involving the cantons, which are entrusted with the implementation of the law. The revision will notably take into account protection against catastrophes, and the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention of 1999, and will concretize the preparatory measures taken in time of peace for the safeguarding of cultural property according to article 5 of that Protocol … and the “enhanced protection” stipulated in chapter 3 of the Protocol. 
Switzerland, Opinion of the Federal Council in response to motion 10.4150 in Parliament regarding protection of cultural property, 23 February 2011.
Switzerland
In 2012, in a statement during the opening session of the International Conference on the Protection of Cultural Property, the ambassador of Switzerland stated:
This conference is devoted to the challenges that the protection of cultural property faces. Those challenges are manifold, and I will touch on one aspect only. In my present function, I deal among other issues with International Humanitarian Law, the Law of Armed Conflict. Armed conflicts are not only tragedies in terms of losses of human lives, but they are every so often also cultural tragedies. In recent history again, several UNESCO world heritage sites have been destroyed, such as the shrines in Mali’s Timbuktu, the Buddha Statues of Bamiyan in Afghanistan or the old bridge in the city of Mostar and the historic city of Dubrovnik during the wars in the former Yugoslavia. We all agree that cultural property must remain protected, as cultural heritage of all mankind, irrespective of the reasons or motives why it may come under attack.
The protection of cultural property has long been included in the law of armed conflicts. The first binding international obligations emerged in the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. These Conventions contained provisions prohibiting attacks on cultural property during hostilities and have been widely recognized as customary international law.
As a consequence of massive destruction of cultural heritage during World War II, the first specific international humanitarian law instruments for the protection of cultural heritage have been adopted: The 1954 Hague Convention for the protection of cultural property in armed conflict, together with its First Protocol. This Convention imposes two main duties on the Member States, namely to prepare for the safeguarding of cultural property in peace time and to respect cultural property in times of conflict. Effective protection during hostilities can only be achieved if adequate mechanisms of prevention and protection are established in peaceful periods.
This year, Ladies and Gentlemen, Switzerland celebrates its 50th anniversary of the ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention. The Swiss ratification in 1962 may be seen as a starting point of cultural property protection in Switzerland. The implementation process led to the adoption of the Federal Cultural Property Protection Act and, even more importantly, to the creation of a national inventory of significant cultural property.
The inventory was revised in 2009 for the third time and is now a detailed, comprehensive and up to date tool to be used to implement the measures prescribed by international and national law by all relevant authorities. …
The development of the legal framework protecting cultural property found its way into the classic regime of IHL in 1977, being included in some provisions of the two additional protocols to the [1949] Geneva Conventions. The next milestone within the international context was the establishment of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention in 1999. Switzerland was one of the driving forces in the process, and we consider the Protocol to constitute a significant improvement and reinforcement of the protective framework. Amongst other things, it established the system of “enhanced protection” for cultural heritage of the greatest importance for humanity.
Against the background of all these instruments, one of the main challenges – in all likelihood the main challenge – of international humanitarian law is lack of respect. As seen on many occasions, in times of armed conflicts, respect for the law is often weak. We firmly believe that in order to prevent future violations, there must be accountability for violations. Perpetrators of serious crimes must not go unpunished. Therefore, it was a primary objective of the Swiss delegation to include the principle of universal jurisdiction for grave breaches of provisions protecting cultural property in the draft of the Second Protocol.
The idea of establishing individual criminal responsibility for such violations is not entirely new. The 1954 Hague Convention already contained an article requesting State parties to impose sanctions on persons violating the convention. However, this provision was rarely applied because it did not contain a specific list of violations. The new Protocol now incorporates a criminal law approach featuring significant improvements: It defines five specific offences triggering individual criminal responsibility. …
Moreover, under the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes or historic monuments may amount to war crimes.
There is now a strong legal and institutional framework to fight impunity through effective criminal prosecution.
Over the last years, international tribunals have dealt with violations of provisions on the protection of cultural property.
A number of cases before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia involved the destruction of cultural property. In its findings, the Court repeatedly referred to the 1954 Hague Convention and the Protocols to the Geneva Conventions.
More recently, the ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda stressed that the deliberate destruction of the shrines of Muslim saints in the city of Timbuktu may constitute a war crime under Article 8 of the Rome Statute. On 13 July, the government of Mali referred the situation to the ICC while expressly mentioning in its letter to the Prosecutor “the destruction of churches, mausoleums and mosques”. A preliminary examination is currently in progress.
Unfortunately, both the Rome Statute and the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention are yet far from being universally accepted instruments. Despite the fact that the main rules pertaining to the protection of cultural property are part of customary international law, it is crucial that these treaties achieve very wide and ultimately universal acceptance.
Now, I am the first to say that the contribution that international tribunals make to the prosecution of crimes against cultural property is important. Having said this, though, it must also be must also be underlined that it is primarily the duty of States to take the necessary measures to ensure that cultural objects are protected and, if necessary, to investigate and prosecute those responsible for violations. Only when both pillars, the national and the international, are strong, will we achieve to effectively prevent cultural property from wanton destruction during conflicts. 
Switzerland, Statement by the ambassador of Switzerland during the opening session of the International Conference on the Protection of Cultural Property, Bern, 1 October 2012, pp. 1–4.
[emphasis in original]
United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated that “cultural … property was confiscated [and] pillage was widespread” in violation of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 620.
The report further stated: “Iraqi war crimes were widespread and premeditated. They include … looting of cultural property”. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 632.
Zimbabwe
According to the Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, the protection afforded to private property by Section 16 of the Constitution would extend to cultural property within national territory. 
Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, 1998, Chapter 4.3.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly stated that it was:
Alarmed that, although the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a religious conflict, it has been characterized by the systematic destruction and profanation of mosques, churches and other places of worship, as well as other sites of cultural heritage, in particular areas currently or previously under Serbian control. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 47/147, 18 December 1992, preamble, adopted without a vote.
Similar concerns were expressed in 1994 and 1995. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/196, 23 December 1994, preamble, voting record: 150-0-14-21; Res. 50/193, 22 December 1995, preamble, voting record: 144-1-20-20.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing concern also about the loss, destruction, removal, theft, pillage, illicit movement or misappropriation of and any acts of vandalism or damage directed against cultural property, in particular in areas of armed conflict, including territories that are occupied, whether such conflicts are international or internal,
4. Reaffirms the importance of the principles and provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and invites Member States that have not already done so to become parties to the Convention and to promote its implementation;
5. Also reaffirms the importance of the Second Protocol to the Convention, adopted at The Hague on 26 March 1999, and invites all States Parties to the Convention to consider becoming parties to the Second Protocol. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/17, 3 December 2003, preamble and §§ 4–5, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly expressed deep concern about “the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including the destruction of homes and properties, of religious, cultural and historical sites”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/99, 9 December 2003, preamble, voting record: 150-6-19-16.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly expressed deep concern about “the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/124, 10 December 2004, preamble, voting record: 149-7-22-13.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly expressed deep concern about “the continuing detrimental impact of the extensive destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/107, 8 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 148-7-17-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, the UN General Assembly:
Seriously concerned at all attacks upon religious places, sites and shrines, including any deliberate destruction of relics and monuments,
4. Urges States:
(b) To exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and religious symbols are fully respected and protected and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/166, 16 December 2005, preamble and § 4, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin, the UN General Assembly:
Expressing concern … about the loss, destruction, removal, theft, pillage, illicit movement or misappropriation of and any acts of vandalism or damage directed against cultural property, in particular in areas of armed conflict, including territories that are occupied, whether such conflicts are international or internal,
7. Reaffirms the importance of the principles and provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and of their implementation, and invites Member States that have not already done so to become parties to the Convention;
8. Also reaffirms the importance of the Second Protocol to the Convention, adopted at The Hague on 26 March 1999, and of its implementation, and invites all States parties to the Convention that have not already done so to consider becoming parties to the Second Protocol;
9. Welcomes the most recent efforts made by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for the protection of the cultural heritage of countries in conflict, … and calls upon the international community to contribute to these efforts. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/52, 4 December 2006, preamble and §§ 7–9, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly expressed deep concern about “the vast destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/119, 14 December 2006, preamble, voting record: 157-9-14-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, the UN General Assembly:
Seriously concerned at all attacks upon religious places, sites and shrines, including any deliberate destruction of relics and monuments,
4. Urges States:
(b) To exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/161, 19 December 2006, preamble and § 4, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly expressed deep concern about “the vast destruction caused by the Israeli occupying forces, including of religious, cultural and historical sites”.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/109, 17 December 2007, preamble, voting record: 156-7-11-18.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, the UN General Assembly expressed concern “at attacks upon religious places, sites and shrines, including any deliberate destruction of relics and monuments”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/157, 18 December 2007, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1977 on the question of the violation of human rights in the territories occupied as a result of hostilities in the Middle East, the UN Commission on Human Rights, guided inter alia by the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, condemned certain Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including “[t]he pillaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1 (XXXIII) A, 15 February 1977, § 4(i), voting record: 23-3-6.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1978 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, bearing in mind the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and “other relevant conventions and regulations”, condemned certain Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including “[t]he pillaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1 (XXXIV) A, 14 February 1978, § 4(h), voting record: 23-2-7.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1979 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, bearing in mind the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and “other relevant conventions and regulations”, condemned certain Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including “[t]he pillaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1 (XXXV) A, 21 February 1979, § 3(h), voting record 20-2-9.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1980 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, bearing in mind the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and “other relevant conventions and regulations”, condemned certain Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including “[t]he pillaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1 (XXXVI) A, 13 February 1980, § 3(g), voting record: 28-3-8.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1981 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, bearing in mind the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and “other relevant conventions and regulations”, condemned certain Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including “[t]he pillaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1 A (XXXVII), 11 February 1981, § 7(h), voting record: 31-3-8.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1982 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, bearing in mind the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and “other relevant conventions and regulations”, strongly condemned certain Israeli practices in the occupied territories, including “[t]he pillaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1982/1 A, 11 February 1982, § 5(h), voting record: 32-3-7.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1983 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, bearing in mind the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and “other relevant conventions and regulations”, strongly condemned certain Israeli practices in the occupied territories, including “[t]he pillaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1983/1 A, 15 February 1983, § 5(h), voting record: 29-1-13.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1984 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, bearing in mind the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and “other relevant conventions and regulations”, strongly condemned certain Israeli practices in the occupied territories, including “[t]he pillaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1984/1 A, 20 February 1984, § 7(i), voting record: 29-1-11.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1985 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, bearing in mind the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and “other relevant conventions and regulations”, strongly condemned certain Israeli practices in the occupied territories, including “[t]he pillaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1985/1 A, 19 February 1985, § 8(i), voting record: 28-5-8.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1986 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, bearing in mind the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and “other relevant conventions and regulations”, strongly condemned certain Israeli practices in the occupied territories, including “[t]he pillaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1986/1 A, 20 February 1986, § 8(i), voting record: 29-7-6.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1987 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, bearing in mind the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and “the principles of international humanitarian law”, strongly condemned certain Israeli practices in the occupied territories, including the “[p]illaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1987/2 A, 19 February 1987, § 8(h), voting record: 28-8-6.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1988 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, bearing in mind the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and “the principles of international humanitarian law”, condemned “the pillaging of archaeological and cultural property”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1988/1 A, 15 February 1988, § 10, voting record: 31-8-4.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its deep concern over reports of the destruction and looting of the cultural and historical heritage of Afghanistan and urged the parties to protect and safeguard such heritage. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/70, 21 April 1998, §§ 2(g) and 5(h), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Seriously concerned at all attacks upon religious places, sites and shrines, including any deliberate destruction of relics and monuments,
4.Urges States:
(e) To exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights standards, to ensure that religious places, sites and shrines are fully respected and protected and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/54, 24 April 2003, preamble and § 4(e), voting record: 51-0-2.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Seriously concerned at all attacks upon religious places, sites and shrines, including any deliberate destruction of relics and monuments,
4. Urges States:
(e) To exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights standards, to ensure that religious places, sites and shrines are fully respected and protected and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;
(f) To ensure that all public officials and civil servants, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief, and that all necessary and appropriate education or training is provided. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/36, 19 April 2004, preamble and § 4(e)–(f), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Asserting that the punitive measures imposed by Israel, the occupying Power, on the Palestinian civil population, including collective punishment, border closures and severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods, arbitrary arrests and detentions, destruction of homes and vital infrastructure, including religious, educational, cultural and historical sites, led to a steep deterioration in the socio-economic conditions, perpetuating a dire humanitarian crisis throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and affirms that these punitive measures violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/7, 14 April 2005, preamble, voting record: 29-10-14.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Seriously concerned at all attacks upon religious places, sites and shrines, including any deliberate destruction of relics and monuments,
4. Urges States:
(b) To exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and religious expressions are fully respected and protected and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;
(g) To ensure that all public officials and civil servants, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief, and that all necessary and appropriate education or training is provided. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/40, 19 April 2005, preamble and § 4(b) and (g), adopted without a vote.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 entitled “Protection of cultural rights and property in situations of armed conflict”, the UN Human Rights Council:
Gravely concerned about serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law during armed conflicts, in all parts of the world, and their detrimental impact on cultural rights and property,
1. Calls upon all States to respect human rights law and strongly urges all parties to an armed conflict to strictly observe and respect, as applicable, the rules of international humanitarian law during armed conflicts, and to respect the rules on the protection of cultural property;
2. Emphasizes that each party to an armed conflict is committed under international law to take all necessary steps to protect cultural property through safeguarding of and respect for such property, including cultural property situated in occupied territories;
3. Strongly condemns any destruction of cultural property in violation of international humanitarian law, as applicable, during armed conflicts;
5. Urges States and encourages intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to take all necessary measures at the national, regional and international levels to address the issue of protection of cultural rights and property during armed conflicts, paying particular attention to the situation in occupied territories, and to provide appropriate assistance as requested by the concerned States. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. 6/1, 27 September 2007, preamble and §§ 1–3 and 5, adopted without a vote.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, the UN Human Rights Council:
Seriously concerned at all attacks upon religious places, sites and shrines in violation of international law, in particular human rights and humanitarian law, including any deliberate destruction of relics and monuments,
9. Urges States:
(e) To exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;
(j) To ensure that all public officials and civil servants, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief, and that all necessary and appropriate education or training is provided. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. 6/37, 14 December 2007, preamble and § 9(e) and (j), voting record: 29-0-18.
UN Secretary-General
In a joint declaration issued in 1991 on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the Director-General of UNESCO and the UN Secretary-General launched a solemn appeal to all parties “to respect the principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and in the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”. 
Director-General of UNESCO and the UN Secretary-General, Joint declaration on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, 24 October 1991, UNESCO Courier, January 1992, p. 50.
UNESCO General Conference
In a resolution adopted in 1993, the UNESCO General Conference reaffirmed that “(a) the object and purpose of the 1954 Hague Convention are still valid and realistic” and “(b) the fundamental principles of protecting and preserving cultural property in the event of armed conflict could be considered part of customary international law”. 
UNESCO, General Conference, Res. 3.5, 13 November 1993, preamble.
UNESCO
In a press release issued in February 2001 following press reports of the deliberate destruction by the Taliban of more than a dozen ancient statues in the Afghan National Museum in Kabul and of an order by the supreme Taliban leader to destroy all statues in Afghanistan which, as human representations, were viewed as unIslamic, UNESCO strongly appealed to those directly concerned to stop the destruction of the cultural heritage of the peoples of Afghanistan. 
UNESCO, Press Release No. 2001-27, 26 February 2001.
UNESCO Director-General
In a joint declaration issued in 1991 on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the Director-General of UNESCO and the UN Secretary-General launched a solemn appeal to all parties “to respect the principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and in the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”. 
Director-General of UNESCO and the UN Secretary-General, Joint declaration on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, 24 October 1991, UNESCO Courier, January 1992, p. 50.
UNESCO Director-General
In a press release issued in March 2001, the Director-General of UNESCO condemned the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and described it as a “crime against culture”. He stated that “it is abominable to witness the cold and calculated destruction of cultural properties which were the heritage of the Afghan people, and, indeed, of the whole of humanity”. 
UNESCO, Press Release No. 2001-38, 12 March 2001.
UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1993, in a report on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights stated that “massive violations of human rights and international humanitarian law” were committed “deliberately to achieve ethnically homogenous areas” through a “variety of methods used in ethnic cleansing”, including the “destruction of mosques”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/50, 10 February 1993, §§ 16–17.
The Special Rapporteur deplored the fact that “Ukrainians in the Banja Luka region were reportedly subjected to psychological pressure which included the blowing up of the Ukrainian church in Prnjavor, the destruction of the old church in Dubrava and of a village church near Omarska”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/50, 10 February 1993, § 23.
The Special Rapporteur added: “Although the conflict … is not regarded as a religious one, it has been characterised by the systematic destruction and profanation of mosques, Catholic churches and other places of worship.” 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/50, 10 February 1993, § 106.
In another report the same year, under the heading “Other violations of human rights and humanitarian law”, the Special Rapporteur noted deliberate damage to or destruction of church buildings. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Fifth periodic report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/47, 17 November 1993, §§ 46 and 69.
UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1997, in a report on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights stated: “Acts of looting of the Afghan cultural heritage constitute a clear violation of the laws of war.” Reference was not made to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, but “the trafficking of such artifacts” was qualified as “a legal violation of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property” and of the “domestic laws of the countries concerned”. The report further declared that “the tacit approval by Governments and museums of such practices [looting and illegal trafficking] may amount to ‘cultural genocide’ or to ‘genocide of the cultural rights’ of the Afghan people”.  
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan, Final report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1997/59, 20 February 1997, §§ 117 and 131.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In 1993, in a report on the destruction by war of the cultural heritage of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Committee on Culture and Education of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly stated that the conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina “have led to a major cultural catastrophe for all the communities of the war zone … and also for our European heritage”, basing this statement in part on the fact that “churches and mosques are annihilated”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Committee on Culture and Education, Information report on the destruction of the cultural heritage of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Doc. 6756, 2 February 1993, §§ 1, 3 and 5.
League of Arab States Council
In a resolution adopted in 1983, the League of Arab States Council condemned Israel for its “robbing of archaeological and cultural properties” and “violating the sanctity of places of worship”. 
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 4237, 31 March 1983, § 1(b).
Islamic Summit Conference
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the destruction and desecration of the Islamic historical and cultural relics and shrines in the occupied Azeri territories resulting from the Republic of Armenia’s aggression against the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Islamic Summit Conference, referring to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, condemned “the mass and barbaric demolition of mosques and other Islamic shrines in Azerbaijan by Armenia”. It further stated:
Governments are bound to ban theft and looting of whatever type, acts of illegal violations of cultural values … as well as savage prejudice to the above values. They are committed to prevent such acts or reverse their effects where necessary. 
Islamic Summit Conference, Ninth Session, Doha, 12–13 November 2000, Res. 25/8-C (IS), preamble and §§ 1 and 3.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Tadić case in 1995, the ICTY Appeals Chamber held: “It cannot be denied that customary rules have developed to govern internal strife. These rules … cover such areas as … protection of civilian objects, in particular cultural property.” 
ICTY, Tadić case, Interlocutory Appeal, 2 October 1995, § 127.
The Appeals Chamber explicitly stated that Article 19 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, which provides for the application of the provisions of the Convention relating to respect for cultural property “as a minimum” in non-international armed conflicts, constituted a treaty rule which had “gradually become part of customary law”. 
ICTY, Tadić case, Interlocutory Appeal, 2 October 1995, § 98.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Hadžihasanović case before the ICTY in 2003, one of the accused, Hadžihasanović, a senior officer in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ABiH), was charged, inter alia, with violations of the laws or customs of war (destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion) under Article 3(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute for his alleged omissions as a commander in relation to the “destruction or wilful damage of Bosnian Croat institutions dedicated to religion” in the towns of Guča Gora and Travnik in June 1993, allegedly committed by ABiH forces under his command and effective control. 
ICTY, Hadžihasanović case, Third Amended Indictment, 26 September 2003, § 46, Count 7.
In its Decision on Motions for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence in 2004, the ICTY Trial Chamber reaffirmed its competence to “consider the offence of destruction or wilful damage of institutions dedicated to religion, set out in Article 3(d) of the [1993 ICTY] Statute” in the context of international armed conflicts, “Article 3, including Article 3(d), deriv[ing] from customary rules applicable to such conflicts”. 
ICTY, Hadžihasanović case, Decision on Motions for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 27 September 2004, § 146.
Furthermore, with regard to non-international armed conflicts, it found that it was also “competent to consider the offence of destruction or wilful damage of institutions dedicated to religion set out in Article 3(d) of the Statute within the framework of a […] non-international armed conflict”. 
ICTY, Hadžihasanović case, Decision on Motions for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 27 September 2004, § 149.
The Trial Chamber considered:
147. With regard to non-international armed conflicts, a decision of the Appeals Chamber [decision on the defence motion for interlocutory appeal in the Tadić case in 1995] set out as a principle that one cannot deny that customary rules emerged in order to regulate internal conflicts, and that these rules cover domains such as the protection of private property “in particular cultural property”. This Decision also refers to Article 19 of the Hague Convention of 14 May 1954 on the protection of cultural property in the event of an armed conflict, which stipulates that in “the event of an armed conflict not of an international character […] each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the provisions of the […] Convention which relate to respect for cultural property.” The Appeals Chamber explained as part of a discussion of the law applicable to the conflicts in former Yugoslavia, that Article 19 came under customary law regulating non-international armed conflicts and that “customary international law imposes criminal liability for […] breaching certain fundamental principles and rules regarding means and methods of combat in civil strife.” In view of case-law, the Chamber concludes that in the event of a non-international conflict the offence of destruction or wilful damage of institutions dedicated to religion comes under international customary law at the time of the facts alleged in the Indictment.
148. The question arises as to whether the prohibition of destruction or wilful damage of institutions dedicated to religion can entail the individual criminal responsibility of a person during the period relevant to the Indictment within the framework of a non-international conflict. In view of the general observations of the Appeals Chamber on this subject, this Chamber concludes that the response must be affirmative. 
ICTY, Hadžihasanović case, Decision on Motions for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 27 September 2004, §§ 147–148.
In 2005, the ICTY Appeals Chamber, in its Decision on Joint Defence Interlocutory Appeal of Trial Chamber Decision on Rule 98 bis Motions for Acquittal, affirmed the Trial Chamber’s finding in its 2004 Decision on Motions for Acquittal that international customary law in both international and non-international armed conflicts protects cultural property, and in particular also prohibits destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, and, in all situations of armed conflict, also entails the criminal responsibility of persons breaching these rules. 
ICTY, Hadžihasanović case, Decision on Joint Defence Interlocutory Appeal of Trial Chamber Decision on Rule 98 bis Motions for Acquittal, 11 March 2005, §§ 44–48.
In its judgment in 2006, the ICTY Trial Chamber, referring, inter alia, to the trial judgments in the cases of Kordić, Blaškić, Strugar, Brđjanin and Naletilić, defined “destruction or wilful damage of institutions dedicated to religion” under Article 3(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute:
57. The Chamber subscribes to the definition of the Kordić Chamber according to which the crime of destruction or wilful damage to institutions dedicated to religion is constituted when “the destruction or damage is committed wilfully and the accused intends by his acts to cause the destruction or damage of institutions dedicated to religion […] and not used for a military purpose.”
58. The Chamber considers that the elements of the offence of destruction or wilful damage to institutions dedicated to religion exist under Article 3(d) of the [1993 ICTY] Statute when: (i) a religious institution is destroyed or damaged; (ii) the damaged or destroyed property was not used for military purposes and, (iii) the act was carried out with the intent to damage or destroy the property in question.
59. The Chamber considers the wilful nature of the destruction or damage to be established when the perpetrator acted intentionally, with the knowledge and will of the proscribed result, or in reckless disregard of the likelihood of the destruction.
60. The Chamber notes that it is sufficient for the damaged or destroyed institution to be an institution dedicated to religion, and that there is no need to establish whether it represented the cultural heritage of a people. The Hague Regulations of 1907, which form part of customary international law and provide the basis for Article 3 of the Statute, afford protection to “buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments […] provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes”, without requiring that these buildings represent the cultural heritage of a people.
61. The Chamber considers that the provisions of the Hague Convention of 1954 and the Additional Protocol dealing with cultural property have scopes of application different from Article 3(d) of the Statute. Unlike the Statute, Article 53 of the Additional Protocol I and Article 1 of the Hague Convention of 1954 afford protection solely to property which “constitute[s] the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples” or which is “of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people”. Moreover, the protection afforded by the Hague Convention of 1954 and by Additional Protocol I is broader than that afforded by Article 3(d) of the Statute. While Tribunal case law at times waives the principle of protection of religious institutions when they are used for military purposes, Additional Protocol I prohibits all acts of hostility against protected property, thereby providing no such waiver. The Hague Convention of 1954 waives the obligation to protect only in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver.
62. The Chamber is of the opinion that to constitute an offence punishable by Article 3 of the Statute, the destruction of or damage to institutions dedicated to religion need not be carried out in the context of military action. It is sufficient for the offence stipulated in Article 3(d) of the Statute to be closely linked to the hostilities.
63. The Chamber recalls that the crime of destruction or wilful damage to institutions dedicated to religion must satisfy the conditions for applying Article 3 of the Statute, particularly that dealing with the gravity of the offence. That condition is met when the damage or destruction constitutes a breach of a rule protecting important values and involves grave consequences for the victim. The Chamber notes that while civilian property is afforded general protection under customary international law, special attention is paid to certain property, namely religious buildings, owing to their spiritual value. Because those values go beyond the scope of a single individual and have a communal dimension, the victim here must not be considered as an individual but as a social group or community. The Chamber considers that the destruction of or damage to the institutions referred to in Article 3(d) of the Statute constitutes grave breaches of international law when the destruction or damage is sufficiently serious to constitute desecration. The Chamber considers that the seriousness of the crime of destruction of or damage to institutions dedicated to religion must be ascertained on a case-by-case basis, and take much greater account of the spiritual value of the damaged or destroyed property than the material extent of the damage or destruction.
64. The Chamber finds that the offence of destruction of or damage to institutions dedicated to religion is constituted when a religious building not being used for military purposes has been wilfully damaged or destroyed. Religious institutions are protected under Article 3(d) of the Statute, regardless of whether they are part of the cultural heritage of peoples. 
ICTY, Hadžihasanović case, Judgment, 15 March 2006, §§ 57–64.
The Trial Chamber found the accused Hadžihasanović “not guilty of failing to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish the destruction of or wilful damage to institutions dedicated to religion”. 
ICTY, Hadžihasanović case, Judgment, 15 March 2006, Part IX (Disposition), Count 7.
While it found that the monastery of Guča Gora and a church in Travnik had indeed been damaged, the damages constituting acts of “desecration”, 
ICTY, Hadžihasanović case, Judgment, 15 March 2006, §§ 2005 and 2014.
it also found that the damage “was the work of foreign mujahedin” who “were not under the effective control of the Accused Hadžihasanović at the time of the alleged facts”. 
ICTY, Hadžihasanović case, Judgment, 15 March 2006, §§ 2005–2008 and 2014–2017.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Babić case before the ICTY in 2003, the accused was charged with a crime against humanity (persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, punishable under Articles 5(h) and 7(1) of the 1993 ICTY Statute) as well as with violations of the laws or customs of war (punishable under Articles 3 and 7(1) of the 1993 ICTY Statute). The Article 3 charges included destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education or religion for “[t]he deliberate destruction of homes, other public and private property, cultural institutions, historic monuments and sacred sites of the Croat and other non-Serb population” in the Krajina region of Croatia from August 1991 to at least February 1992. 
ICTY, Babić case, Initial Indictment, 17 November 2003, § 15(d) and 16, Count 5.
Following a plea agreement negotiated between the accused and the Prosecution, Babić pleaded guilty to the persecution charge. The remaining charges were withdrawn. In January 2004, the Trial Chamber found the accused guilty of persecutions on political, racial, and religious grounds for participating as a co-perpetrator in a joint criminal enterprise. 
ICTY, Babić case, Sentencing Judgment, 29 June 2004, § 41.
He was subsequently sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment, a sentence that was reaffirmed by the Appeals Chamber in 2005. 
ICTY, Babić case, Judgment on Sentencing Appeal, 18 July 2005, XI Disposition.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Hadžić case before the ICTY in 2004, the accused was charged, inter alia, with violations of the laws or customs of war under Article 3(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute (destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education or religion) for having:
Planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of the wanton destruction and plunder of the public and private property of the Croat and other non-Serb population, within the territory of the SAO SBWS [Serbian Autonomous District/Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem], although these actions were not justified by military necessity. This intentional and wanton destruction and plunder included the plunder and destruction of homes and religious and cultural buildings. 
ICTY, Hadžić case, Initial Indictment, 4 June 2004, § 40, Count 13.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Martić case before the ICTY in 2007, the accused was charged, inter alia, with the destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion or education as a violation of the laws or customs of war under Article 3(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute. 
ICTY, Martić case, Amended Indictment, 14 July 2003, § 48, Count 13.
In its judgment in 2007, the Trial Chamber stated:
96. The crime of destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion or education has the following elements:
1. an act has caused damage to, or destruction of, an institution dedicated to religion or education;
2. the damaged or destroyed institution was not used for military purposes at the time of the act; and
3. the act was carried out with intent to destroy or damage, or in reckless disregard of the likelihood of the destruction or damage to the institution in question.
97. Article 3(d) of the [1993 ICTY] Statute is considered as comprising of two types of protection for cultural, historical, and religious monuments: general protection and special protection. General protection applies to civilian objects, that is all objects which are not military objects. Special protection is granted to “historic monuments, works of art, and places of worship, provided they constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples”. The “cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples” covers “objects whose value transcends geographical boundaries, and which are unique in character and are intimately associated with the history and culture of a people”. Thus, special protection does not encompass all the buildings or institutions dedicated to education or religion.
98. The protection of institutions dedicated to religion or education is lost if such institutions are used for a military purpose. The Trial Chamber considers that this exception applies both to general protection and special protection under Article 3(d) of the Statute. However, the protection is not lost simply because military activities or military installations are situated in the immediate vicinity of the institution. It is the use of an institution and not its location which is the decisive factor.
99. The mens rea of this crime is that the perpetrator acted with direct or indirect intent. 
ICTY, Martić case, Judgment, 12 June 2007, §§ 96–99.
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission
In its Central Front (Eritrea’s Claim) partial award in 2004, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission stated that “deliberate destruction of historic monuments was prohibited by Article 56 of the [1907] Hague Regulations, which prohibition is part of customary law”. 
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Central Front, Eritrea’s Claim, Partial Award, 28 April 2004, § 113.
(footnote in original omitted)
No data.
No data.