Соответствующая норма
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 38. Attacks against Cultural Property
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states:
63. The following actions are prohibited:
a.to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;
64. Care must be taken to avoid locating military personnel and material in or near protected cultural objects and places of worship.
65. Cultural objects and places of worship should be marked with the international sign [of the blue shield]. However, the absence of such a sign does not deprive such objects of protection.
66. Not all cultural objects and places of worship are protected as cultural or religious property by the LOAC. Only those cultural objects and places of worship which constitute the “cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples” are so protected. Therefore, a small village church may not be protected by the cultural protection provisions of the LOAC, but a major cathedral (e.g., Vatican) is likely entitled to protection. However, the fact that an object is not a cultural object does not mean that it is not a “civilian object”. It would be entitled to protection under that status.
67. It is recognized that it may be difficult to distinguish between cultural objects and places of worship which are protected and those which are not protected. However, cultural objects and places of worship which are not protected nevertheless remain civilian objects and are protected as such.
68. Cultural objects and places of worship being used by the adverse party in support of its military effort may become legitimate targets.
69. Whether you attack cultural objects and places of worship which have become legitimate targets will depend on your mission. If so, the principle of proportionality is particularly important, as the location or object should not be damaged any more than what the mission requires.
70. Where possible, the opposing force should be warned to stop using a cultural object or place of worship for military purposes before an attack is launched. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-7, §§ 63–70; see also p. 6-4, § 39.
The manual defines as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
attacks against clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, where there is no evidence of prior use of such objects in support of the adverse party’s military effort and where such places are not located in the immediate proximity of legitimate targets. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-3, § 17(d); see also p. 16-4, § 21(d) (“attacking a privileged or protected building”).
With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “It is forbidden to commit any hostile acts directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-5, § 40.
Rule 9 of Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides:
1. As a general rule, buildings or property dedicated to cultural or religious purposes may not be attacked …
2. … Thus every attempt should be made to avoid unnecessary desecration or destruction of cultural objects and places of worship.
3. The identification of religious locations and objects is usually obvious. Churches, mosques and synagogues, cemeteries and other places of religious significance such as monasteries and temples are protected. The proper identification of cultural objects may not be as readily apparent. Cultural property is property of great importance to the cultural heritage of a people such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or not, archaeological sites, archives, buildings, manuscripts, works of art, large libraries, etc. These objects are protected.
4. Some cultural and religious locations may be marked with a distinctive blue and white sign … However, not all religious and cultural property is marked with such a sign. Religious and cultural property should be respected whether or not it is marked with a sign. Thus a church or mosque should be protected even though the distinctive sign for cultural property may not be displayed on the exterior of the church.
5. Cultural and religious property should not be targeted … If cultural or religious property is used for a military purpose, it loses its protection. Thus, care must be taken to avoid locating military personnel and material in or near these locations. If the opposing force is using a religious or cultural site for military purposes it becomes a legitimate target. Whether you attack this legitimate target will depend on your mission. If so, the principle of proportionality is particularly important as the location or object should not be damaged any more than what the mission requires. For example, the destruction of all or a portion of a church steeple may or may not be justified if it is being used by a sniper. The decision to attack would be based on the level of threat that the sniper presents and the military mission. The tactical method selected for the attack should not place CF personnel under undue risk yet should cause the least possible damage to the church. Where possible, the opposing force must be warned to stop using a cultural or religious site for a military purpose before an attack. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 9, §§ 1–5.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on targeting:
1. The following actions are prohibited:
a. to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;
….
2. Care must be taken to avoid locating military personnel and material in or near protected cultural objects and places of worship.
3. Cultural objects and places of worship should be marked with the international sign set out in Annex A [i.e. the blue shield]. However, the absence of such a sign does not deprive such objects of protection.
4. Not all cultural objects and places of worship are protected as cultural or religious property by the LOAC. Only those cultural objects and places of worship, which constitute the “cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples”, are so protected. Therefore, a small village church may not be protected by the cultural protection provisions of the LOAC, but a major cathedral (for example, Vatican) is likely entitled to protection.
However, the fact that an object is not a cultural object does not mean that it is not a “civilian object.” It would be entitled to protection under that status.
5. It is recognized that it may be difficult to distinguish between cultural objects and places of worship which are protected and those which are not protected. However, cultural objects and places of worship which are not protected nevertheless remain civilian objects and are protected as such.
6. Cultural objects and places of worship being used by the adverse party in support of its military effort may become legitimate targets.
7. Whether you attack cultural objects and places of worship which have become legitimate targets will depend on your mission. If so, the principle of proportionality is particularly important, as the location or object should not be damaged any more than what the mission requires.
8. Where possible, the opposing force should be warned to stop using a cultural object or place of worship for military purposes before an attack is launched. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 443.1–8.
In its chapter on land warfare, the manual states: “All necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, cultural and religious objects, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 616.
The manual further states with regard to siege warfare:
All necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings devoted to religion, art, science and charity, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes. Either the residents or the opposing force in the besieged area should indicate the buildings or places to be protected by visible signs and should notify the attacking force of these signs. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 614.3.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual qualifies the following as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
… attacks against clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, where there is no evidence of prior use of such objects in support of the adverse party’s military effort and where such places are not located in the immediate proximity of legitimate targets. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.3.d.
In the same chapter, the manual further states that “attacking a privileged or protected building” constitutes a war crime. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1609.3.d.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states: “It is forbidden to commit any hostile acts directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship that constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1723.
In its glossary, the manual defines “cultural objects” as follows:
Cultural objects are movable and immovable objects of sufficient artistic or religious importance to constitute the heritage of all people, including that which has been renovated or restored. Cultural objects include historical monuments, archaeological sites, books, manuscripts or scientific papers and the buildings or other places in which such objects are housed. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, Glossary, p. GL-3.
Rule 9 of Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) provides:
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.
Religious and Cultural Objects
3. The identification of religious locations and objects is usually obvious. Churches, mosques and synagogues, cemeteries and other places of religious significance such as monasteries and temples are protected. The proper identification of cultural objects may not be as readily apparent. Cultural property is property of great importance to the cultural heritage of a people such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or not, archaeological sites, archives, buildings, manuscripts, works of art, large libraries, etc. These objects are protected.
Distinctive Signs for Cultural and Religious Property
4. Some cultural and religious locations may be marked with a distinctive blue and white sign … However, not all religious and cultural property is marked with such a sign. Religious and cultural property should be respected whether or not it is marked with a sign. Thus a church or mosque should be protected even though the distinctive sign for cultural property may not be displayed on the exterior of the church.
Extent of Protection
5. Cultural and religious property should not be targeted. It should also not be used for military purposes. If cultural or religious property is used for a military purpose, it loses its protection. Thus, care must be taken to avoid locating military personnel and material in or near these locations. If the opposing force is using a religious or cultural site for military purposes it becomes a legitimate target. Whether you attack this legitimate target will depend on your mission. If so, the principle of proportionality is particularly important as the location or object should not be damaged any more than what the mission requires. For example, the destruction of all or a portion of a church steeple may or may not be justified if it is being used by a sniper. The decision to attack would be based on the level of threat that the sniper presents and the military mission. The tactical method selected for the attack should not place CF [Canadian Forces] personnel under undue risk yet should cause the least possible damage to the church. Where possible, the opposing force must be warned to stop using a cultural or religious site for a military purpose before an attack. Rules of Engagement may also further restrict the use of force even if the property is being used for a military purpose. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 9, §§ 1–5.
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.” 
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Canada stated:
It is the understanding of the Government of Canada in relation to Article 53 that:
a. such protection as is afforded by the Article will be lost during such time as the protected property is used for military purposes; and
b. the prohibitions contained in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article can only be waived when military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver. 
Canada, Reservations and statements of understanding made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 20 November 1990, § 9.
At the CDDH, Canada noted that Article 47 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 53)
was not intended to replace the existing customary law prohibitions reflected in Article 27 of the 1907 [Hague Regulations] protecting a variety of cultural and religious objects. Rather, the article establishes a special protection for a limited class of objects which because of their recognised importance constitute a part of the cultural heritage of mankind. We were happy to note that the Article was made “without prejudice” to the provisions of the [1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property] thereby implicitly recognizing the exceptions provided for in the Convention. 
Canada, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 224.
In 2013, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development issued a press release entitled “Canada Condemns Attack on Shiite Mosque in Eastern Syria”, which stated: “Canada’s Ambassador for Religious Freedom … today condemned the attack on a Shiite Mosque in eastern Syria: ‘… The targeting of people and their places of worship, whatever the source, cannot be tolerated and must end.’” 
Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, “Canada Condemns Attack on Shiite Mosque in Eastern Syria”, Press Release, 16 June 2013.