12 COM C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Paris, 2 November 2017 Original: French SECOND PROTOCOL TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1954 FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT TWELFTH MEETING UNESCO Headquarters 29-30 November 2017 Item 5 of the provisional agenda: Consideration of National Reports on the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol This document C54/17/12.COM/5.INF presents the details of document C54/17/12.COM/5 providing a summary of the 38 national reports submitted to the Secretariat by the States Parties concerning the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Page 2 BACKGROUND 1. As of 2 November 2017, the Secretariat has received 38 reports for the 2013-2016 cycle (Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Columbia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Honduras, Iraq, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Peru, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand and Ukraine). 2. Out of 38 reports, 31 concern the implementation status of the 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. 3. In comparison with the previous cycle (2011-2013), the number of national reports received has increased by 11. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 4. This document C54/17/12.COM/5.INF presents the details of document C54/17/12.COM/5 providing a summary of the 38 national reports submitted to the Secretariat by the States Parties concerning the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols (Annex 1). The report is divided into six parts, as set out in the questionnaire: I. Implementation of the Hague Convention of 1954; II. Implementation of Resolution II of the Conference of 1954; III. Implementation of the 1954 Protocol; IV. Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol; V. Miscellaneous questions regarding the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols VI. Self-assessment forms VII. The granting of enhanced protection 5. The report is structured by regional Electoral Groups and the States Parties are listed in alphabetical order. 6. The Secretariat recalls that this summary is not exhaustive.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 3 Annex 1 SUMMARY CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1954 HAGUE CONVENTION AND ITS TWO PROTOCOLS I. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1954 HAGUE CONVENTION Article 3 - Safeguarding of cultural property 1. The 9 High Contracting Parties of Electoral Group I (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece, Sweden and Switzerland) reported having adopted, in times of peace, the appropriate safeguarding measures against the foreseeable effects of armed conflict. 2. Austria declared having adopted the Denkmalschutzgesetz Law (Federal Law Gazette BGBl. No. 533/1923 amended by BGBl. I No. 92/2013). Belgium and its regions (the Flemish Region, the Walloon Region, the Brussels-Capital Region, the German-speaking community and the French Community) reported the adoption of various different laws to ensure the safeguarding of cultural property and are responsible for immovable heritage. The federal authority is responsible for federal scientific and cultural institutions. In Canada, the Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) is responsible for planning emergency measures, and for training and sending specialists on the ground. In Cyprus, the Department of Antiquities develops and implements printed and digital inventories, a cultural heritage management plan, the installation of video surveillance systems, fire protection and an emergency evacuation strategy. In Finland, concrete measures for the protection of properties have been taken pursuant to the Emergency Power Act and Rescue Act. They are under the supervision of the Ministry of Education and Culture. In France, the Ministry of Culture organizes various plans enabling organization of the safeguarding of cultural heritage, such as the ORSEC Civil Security Response Organisation Plan, the Listed Establishments Plan and the Cultural Property Preservation Plan. In Greece, the Ministry of Culture and Sports, the Directorate General of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage and the Ministry of the Environment and Energy are the relevant authorities. Law 3028/2002 on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage In General enables implementation of safeguarding measures. In Sweden, the division of roles is currently being organized between the national cultural authorities and the regional and military authorities. In Switzerland, the Federal Law on the Protection of Cultural Property (LFPBC) establishes the organization, measures and financial resources required for the safeguarding of cultural property. The activities implemented include inventories and protection. 3. In Eastern Europe, the 13 High Contracting Parties to the 1954 Hague Convention (Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia and Ukraine) reported having adopted, in times of peace, the appropriate safeguarding measures against the foreseeable effects of armed conflict.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 4 4. In Albania, by Decision no. 312, the Council of Ministers approved the 2016-2018 National Action Plan To prevent and combat trafficking of movable cultural property. The Ministry of Culture is responsible and implements certain initiatives such as national lists, emergency units, digital platforms and the financing of restoration, conservation and promotion programmes. In Armenia, the Ministry of Culture is the responsible authority which organizes the development of databases and the training of museum personnel, in accordance with the national law On the safeguarding and use of historical and cultural monuments and the cultural environment. The report from Bosnia and Herzegovina states that measures have been adopted in order to organize the safeguarding of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. However, Bosnia and Herzegovina states that it was unable to include its response due to technical reasons. It declares that it has raised this question to the Secretariat. In Estonia, international law is considered to be part of the national legal order (monist approach). The Ministry of Culture, the National Heritage Board and the authorities of rural municipalities and towns are responsible for the implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention. To this end, procedures have been developed for the registration and preservation of museum objects, as well as emergency and preparatory measures with a view to the removal of cultural property, as well as for the building and renovation of storage facilities. Georgia is implementing the law on cultural heritage. This law, adopted in 2007, is managed by the Ministry of Culture and for the Protection of Monuments and its subordinate body, the National Agency for Cultural Heritage. Latvia mentions Article 43 of Regulation 474 of the Council of Ministers, Article 2 of section 13 of the Law on civil protection of 1 January 2007 and Regulation no. 423 of the Council of Ministers. The national Ministry of Defence and the Cultural Heritage Department within the Ministry of Culture are the authorities responsible for their implementation. Lithuania mentions the Programme for the protection of cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict and other extreme situations, approved by Resolution no. X-557 of the Seimas of 13 April 2006. The national Ministry of Defence and the Cultural Heritage Department within the Ministry of Culture are responsible for safeguarding measures. In Poland, the Ministry responsible for culture and the protection of national heritage implements the regulations of 25 August 2004 which provide a framework for the safeguarding of cultural property. In the Czech Republic, Law no. 20/1987 on the preservation of cultural heritage is mentioned. The State authorities are responsible for its application and are working on the elaboration of methods for planning the protection of cultural property. Serbia specifies that the safeguarding of cultural property is covered by international law, domestic laws and regulations. In Slovenia, the Ministry of Culture, in partnership with the Ministry of Defense, is responsible for the adoption of safeguarding measures. In Slovakia, the military directive of 2005, - the Directive of the Ministry of Defense of the Slovak Republic in the event of armed conflict -, is mentioned. 5. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the 6 High Contracting Parties to the 1954 Hague Convention (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, and Peru) report the adoption, in times of peace, of appropriate safeguarding measures against the foreseeable effects of armed conflict. 6. Argentina declares that it has adopted safeguarding measures, thanks to the interministerial working group created in 2012 which raises awareness of protection issues among citizens, trains civil and military personnel, organizes conferences and oversees the marking of cultural property. Brazil has adopted safeguarding measures, developing information and unit training programmes. Colombia protects cultural heritage at the constitutional level and has put in place a strategy for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict drawn up by the national Ministry of Defense. The initiatives include safeguarding strategies and workshops on the protection
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 5 of cultural property. In Honduras, the authority responsible for measures for the safeguarding of cultural property is the Honduran Commission for international humanitarian law (CHDIH), itself composed of three sub-commissions: the Commission for legal questions, the Commission for dissemination and promotion and the Commission for the marking of cultural property. Peru mentions Article 21 of the Constitution, general law no. 28296 on the cultural heritage of the Nation and Law no. 2772 for inventory, land registry, preservation, protection and dissemination of declared archaeological sites and zones of national interest. The activities implemented include inventories and the preservation, protection and dissemination of archaeological sites and zones. El Salvador declares that it has adopted safeguarding measures. 7. In Asia and the Pacific, the 4 High Contracting Parties to the 1954 Hague Convention (Cambodia, Japan, Mongolia and Thailand) report the adoption, in time of peace, of appropriate safeguarding measures against the foreseeable effects of armed conflict. 8. Cambodia mentions Articles 69, 70 and 71 of the Constitution of 1993 and the Law of 1996 concerning cultural heritage. Several authorities are responsible, and in particular the Special Police Corps for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, the so-called Heritage Police (placed under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior), the Authority for the Protection and Management of Angkor and of the Siem Reap Region and the National Authority for the Protection and Development of the Preah Vihear Natural and Cultural Site (ANPV). A Zoning and Environmental Management Plan has also been adopted in order to safeguard the Angkor region. In Japan, the Agency for Cultural Affairs and the Office for Education are responsible at the national and local levels respectively. Safeguarding measures are adopted within the framework of the Law for the protection of cultural property. Mongolia mentions the Law concerning the protection of cultural heritage (2014). In Thailand, the Royal Thai Armed Forces are responsible for the adoption and implementation of safeguarding measures. The latter are included in the Rules of engagement of the Royal Thai Armed Forces. 9. Among the Arab States, the 3 High Contracting Parties to the 1954 Hague Convention (Iraq, Oman and Syria) report the adoption, in times of peace, of appropriate safeguarding measures against the foreseeable effects of armed conflict. 10. Iraq has adopted safeguarding measures. These measures include museum evacuations and the storage of antiquities and manuscripts in secure places as well as the supervision of guards. In Oman, the Law on the Protection of National Heritage of 1980 is implemented by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture which registers cultural properties with their description and location. The Syrian Arab Republic has adopted the Law on Antiquities no. 222/1963. The Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) is responsible for training of personnel and storage, inventories and digitization of cultural property. Article 7 Military Measures 11. Among the national reports received by the Secretariat of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols, the following Parties reported the introduction into their regulations or instructions, such provisions for the use of their troops to ensure observance of the Convention, as well as the preparation or establishment, within their armed forces, of services or specialist personnel whose purpose will be to secure respect for cultural property and to co-operate with the civilian authorities responsible for its safeguarding.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 6 12. In Austria, the Annexe to the Military Strategic Concept of the Austrian Armed Forces (MSC, Militärstrategisches Konzept) contains provisions to ensure observance of the Convention. The latter are supervised by specialized military liaison officers trained in the protection of cultural property (Verbindungsoffiziere/militärischer Kulturgüterschutz). They oversee training for all ranks of the military. In Belgium, military commanders are advised by legal experts; it is proposed that civil-military collaboration for the safeguarding of cultural property be organized by CIMIC (civil-military cooperation) advisers and officers. The rules of law of armed conflict, engagement and conduct are disseminated to military conscripts and reminders of humanitarian rules are provided to all soldiers. In Canada, the Code of Conduct of the personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces ensures compliance with the rules of the Convention. The Canadian Forces Military Law Centre (CFMLC) and the military lawyers of the Operations Division are responsible for the education and legal training of the Canadian Armed Forces. In Finland, measures of a military order are included in the Directions concerning the personnel of the Finnish Defence Forces. In 2014, France published the Handbook on The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict for the army (EMP 50.655). Legal advisers are deployed in order to advise the commander of the force. The protection of cultural property is included in all of the planning stages of the conduct of operations. Moreover, cultural properties are registered and included in the No strike list. Greece mentions the Regulations of the Hellenic Armed Forces. The responsible authority is a high-ranking military officer of the national Ministry of Defence in Contact with the Ministry of Culture and Sports. Sweden mentions the Law (1992:1402) and its annexed regulation (1993:243). Training programmes for Swedish nationals traveling to conflict zones are developed. In Switzerland, the Documentation for Warrant Officers contains all of the regulations on the organization of the army and the missions, status and responsibility of military personnel. The publication of The ten basic rules for the protection of cultural property, which has been in force since 1 July 2013, also ensures observance of the Convention by armed forces. The authority in charge is the International Law of Armed Conflicts Section of the Chief of the Army s Defence Staff. 13. In Albania, focal points cooperate with government institutions in order to define the location of cultural property and pass on information on military regulations in order to facilitate the planning of operations. In Armenia, the national law on the legal regime of martial law, the Combat Manual of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia and the Training Manual on International Humanitarian Law regulate military action. Activities encouraging relations between the army, education and culture are also developed. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, a Manual on Legal Assistance Operations 3-0 (OTP 3-0) has been published and a new version (OTP 1-04) is being drafted. The responsible authorities are the staff invested with control duties. Estonia mentions the law on national defence (which came into force on 1 January 2016). Training programmes are in place for military personnel at all levels. In Georgia, the doctrines, regulations and rules of military engagement of the Ministry of Defence ensure compliance with the Convention. The authorities in charge are civil-military cooperation officers assigned to units within the Georgian Armed Forces, the Civil and Military Affairs branch within the joint Defence Staff of the Georgian Armed Forces and the J-3 operations planning department of the General Defence Staff of the Georgian Armed Forces. Latvia mentions several compulsory provisions for the National Armed Forces, and in particular Articles 79 and 229 of the Criminal Code, and Article 89-89.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Lithuania mentions a Plan of measures for the execution of the programme and Directives on the participation of the Armed Forces in work for the preservation of
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 7 immovable heritage artefacts in the event of armed conflict and other extreme situations. A specialist in charge of the protection of cultural heritage exists within the Lithuanian Armed Forces. Poland mentions Order no. 26 of the general commander of the branches of the Armed Forces of 22 January 2015 on observance of the principles of protection of cultural property, including directives, in the general command of the branches of the armed forces and subordinate organizational structures. The report also mentions the Directives of the Operational Commander of the Branches of the Armed Forces of 22 January 2015 on the protection of cultural property as well as a Strategy for the renovation and guarding of immovable military property of historical value for the years 2014-2022. The responsible units are located within the national Ministry of Defence and are in charge of the implementation of international humanitarian law, including the protection of cultural property. Romania cites the Regulations and specific manuals within the national Ministry of Defence, and the decree no. 118/2014 of the national Ministry of Defence. Serbia states that it has adopted measures of a military order. Slovakia reports the military Directive of 2005 Directive of the Ministry Of Defence of the Slovak Republic in the event of armed conflict. Slovenia trains and educates its Armed Forces at all levels, including on knowledge of the distinctive emblems. The Czech Republic mentions law no. 221/1999 on professional soldiers, the Order for the ground forces of the Czech army, the Doctrine of the Czech army and the Czech soldier s manual. 14. In Argentina, measures have been introduced within the military regulations by the detachments of the Armed Forces. Workshops and conferences have been organized within the military bases. The UNESCO Military Manual has also been translated into Spanish. In Colombia, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of human rights and international humanitarian law ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention in international instruments. The latter are included in the regulations and the Operational Law Handbook 3-41 (2015). Military personnel are trained in issues of international humanitarian law. Moreover, preventive and protective measures for civil properties are conducted at the time of military operations. In Honduras, the Joint Doctrine and Military Education Command (CODOCEM) is responsible for the introduction of measures within military regulations. Peru mentions regulations and instructions for the Armed Forces, legislative decree no. 1095 concerning the limits of the use of force by the armed forces and Chapter 8 of Supreme Decree no. 011-2006-ED. Training and education programmes are provided for soldiers and armed forces personnel. An International Law Handbook covering cultural properties in the event of armed conflict has also been drafted. El Salvador reports that it provides training to its military personnel. 15. Cambodia has introduced measures within military regulations. The Heritage Police, the ANPV and the APSARA organize training workshops for Ministries and soldiers. They have also enabled the organization of a symposium focusing on the training of officers and soldiers in the ASEAN region. In Japan, the law on the Self-Defence Forces (SDF) ensures observance of the Convention. The Ministry of Defence and the Self-Defence Forces (SDF), as well as specialized departments, work with the agencies in charge of the protection of cultural property. Mongolia reports that the armed forces comply with the Convention. Thailand mentions military orders concerning the use of force and weapons during operations, as well as the rules of engagement of the Royal Thai Armed Forces. Order 104/2505 (1062) obliges all department to assign services and specialists to ensure the protection of cultural heritage and to collaborate with the Directorate of Joint Operations.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 8 African States (Group V(a)) 16. Nigeria organizes a military presence in vulnerable cultural areas and trains its soldiers. Arab States (Group V (b)) 17. Iraq mentions that it has adopted decrees and orders concerning the protection of archaeological sites and museums. Morocco declares its provision of training to its soldiers. Use of the distinctive emblem to indicate cultural property (Chapter V) 18. Austria, Belgium Cyprus and Switzerland reported having used the distinctive emblem to indicate cultural property in order to ensure that it is recognized. 19. The Czech Republic, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia reported having used the distinctive emblem to indicate cultural property in order to ensure that it is recognized. 20. Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras and Peru reported having used the distinctive emblem to indicate cultural property in order to ensure that it is recognized. 21. The Kingdom of Cambodia and Thailand use the distinctive emblem to indicate cultural property in order to ensure that it is recognized. 22. Iraq and Syria use the distinctive emblem to indicate cultural property in order to ensure that it is recognized. Article 25 Dissemination of the Convention 23. The 9 High Contracting Parties of Electoral Group I (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece, Sweden and Switzerland) reported having disseminated the provisions of the Convention within the armed forces as well as certain target groups and the public at large by various different means (training workshops, seminars, awarenessraising exercises and publications etc.). 24. Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine reported having disseminated the provisions of the Convention within the armed forces as well as certain target groups and the public at large by various different means (training, events, workshops etc.).
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 9 25. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras and Peru reported having disseminated the provisions of the Convention within the armed forces as well as certain target groups and the public at large by various different means (events, training, dissemination in the media etc.). 26. Cambodia, Japan and Thailand reported having disseminated the provisions of the Convention within the Armed Forces as well as certain target groups and the public at large by various different means (symposia, education, training and visits of cultural places etc.). African States (Group V(a)) 27. Nigeria reports having disseminated the provisions of the Convention within the armed forces as well as the target groups and the public at large by various different means (workshops, training programmes and seminars). 28. Iraq, Morocco, Oman and Syria report having disseminated the provisions of the Convention within the armed forces as well as certain target groups and the public at large by various different means (brochures, workshops, training programmes and dissemination via the Internet etc.). Article 26 (1) Official Translations 29. With the exception of Sweden, the 8 other States Parties of Electoral Group I (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece and Switzerland) have translated and submitted an electronic version of their national translations to the Secretariat. 30. Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine have translated and submitted an electronic version of their national translations to the Secretariat. 31. Brazil has provided an official translation. 32. Cambodia, Japan and Thailand have submitted an official translation. African States (Group V(a)) 33. As one of Nigeria s official languages is English, it was therefore considered unnecessary to provide the Secretariat with a translation.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 10 34. Iraq and Syria have provided an official translation. Article 28 Sanctions 35. With the exception of Cyprus, the 8 other High Contracting Parties of Electoral Group I, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Greece, Sweden and Switzerland, reported having implemented Article 28 of the Convention. 36. Austria declared having established criminal offences under international law. In Belgium the Law of 5 August 2003 concerning the punishment of serious violations of international humanitarian law, Article 136quater 1 13 and 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter III of Part IX of Book II of the Penal Code and the Armed Forces Disciplinary Regulations impose sanctions. At the community level, decrees provide for sanctions against any illicit exportation (French community: decree of 11 July 2002; Flemish Community: decree of 24 January 2003; German-speaking community: decree of 23 June 2008). At the regional level, Articles 98,11 and 232 of the Brussels-Capital Region Town Planning Code (Code Bruxellois de l Aménagement du Territoire/CoBAT) and Article D.VII of the Walloon Heritage Code (Code wallon du Patrimoine) lay down certain prohibitions. Canada cites the National Defence Act, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the Criminal Code and the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. Finland mentions Article 5 of the Finnish Criminal Code and Chapter 1, Section 11 of the Criminal Code. France mentions Articles 461-13 to 461-15 of the Penal Code, Article 324-1 of the Penal Code, Article 450-1 of the Penal Code and Article 321-7 of the Penal Code. It has also adopted Law 2016-731 of 3 June 2016 reinforcing the fight against organized crime, terrorism and the financing thereof. Greece mentions Law 3028/2002 on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage In General (Articles 34, 53, 54, 56, 63 and 65) and Law 3658/2008 on Measures for the Protection of Cultural Property and Other Provisions. Sweden cites the Law 2014:406. Switzerland mentions Article 264 of the Swiss Penal Code. 37. The High Contracting Parties of Electoral Group II (Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine) all reported having implemented Article 28 on sanctions. 38. Albania mentions Article 49 of the Law on Cultural Heritage of 7 April 2003. Armenia mentions Articles 264, 390 and 397 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia and the Combat Manual of the Armed Forces. Bosnia and Herzegovina cites Article 183 of the Criminal Code. Estonia mentions Chapter 7 and Division 4 of Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code. Georgia mentions the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offences. Latvia cites Articles 79 and 229 the criminal law of 17 June 1998 as well as Article 89-89.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences of 1 st July 1985. Lithuania mentions Articles 106 and 111 (1) of the Criminal Code. In Poland, Articles 125 to 126c of the Criminal Code provide for sanctions for the destruction of cultural heritage, abusive use of distinctive emblems, for preparing to commit one of these crimes, for allowing a person to commit one of these crimes and for public incitement to commit one of these crimes. Romania mentions Articles 229, 253, 441, 443 and 445 of the new Criminal Code which came into force at 1 st February 2014. Serbia mentions the Regulations of Military Discipline. Slovakia cites the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, the Criminal Code 300/2005 and Laws 115/1998, 183/2000, 479/2005, 395/2002, 515/2003 and 416/2002.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 11 Slovenia cites Articles 102, 104 and 105 of the Criminal Code. The Czech Republic mentions Sections 229 and 411 of the Criminal Code of 2009. Ukraine cites Articles 201, 298 and 438 of the Criminal Code. 39. Argentina declares that it has adopted legal provisions. Colombia mentions Article 156 of Part II of Law 599 of 2000 and the Criminal Code. Peru refers to Article 226 of the Penal Code as well as the Military and Police Penal Code. 40. Cambodia mentions Article 70 of the Constitution, Articles 56 and 63 of the Law on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, Article 54 of the sub-decree on the implementation of the protection of cultural heritage, the Order of the Kingdom of Cambodia on the cessation and eradication of anarchic activities on the site of the Angkor Archaeological Park and the province of Siem Reap, and Articles 62, 399, 410, 509 and 510 of the Criminal Code. Japan cites the Law for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, the Criminal Code and the Law on the Self-Defence Forces. Mongolia mentions Chapter 25 of the national Criminal Code. Thailand mentions Sections 360 and 360 A of the Criminal Code. African States (Group V(a)) 41. Nigeria refers to the NCMM Act of 1979, Section 18, subsections 1 and 2. 42. Oman mentions Articles 4, 9, 39, 33 of the Law of 1980 on the Protection of National Heritage. The Syrian Arab Republic mentions Article 58 of the Law on Antiquities no. 22/1963. II. IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION II OF THE CONFERENCE OF 1954 43. Belgium, Finland and Greece have created national advisory committees in accordance with the hope expressed by the Conference in its Resolution II. 44. In Belgium, it is the Interministerial Commission for Humanitarian Law (1999). In Finland, it is the advisory working group of 2010-2012. In Greece, it is the National Advisory Committee on the application of the Convention (2002). 45. Armenia, Estonia, Poland, Serbia and Slovenia have created national advisory committees in accordance with the hope expressed by the Conference in its Resolution II. 46. In Armenia, it is the interministerial working group. In Estonia, it is the National Joint Commission (NJC). In Poland, it is the Advisory Committee appointed by the Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 27 April 2004. In Serbia, it is the National Advisory Committee. In Slovenia, it is the advisory committee for harmonized cooperation between Ministries.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 12 47. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Honduras have created national advisory committees in accordance with the hope expressed by the Conference in its Resolution II. 48. In Argentina, this means the Working Group for implementation of the undertakings made by the Government for the actual implementation of the Convention of 1954 (2012). In Brazil, a national advisory committee is set to be created in 2017. In Colombia, this is the Subsystem of International Humanitarian Law and Armed Conflict (2012). In Honduras, it is the Honduran Commission for international humanitarian law. 49. Cambodia has created several national advisory committees, the Supreme Council on National Culture (SCNC, 1993), the APSARA, the Committee for the protection and development of the historical site of the archaeological park of Angkor (ICC- Angkor), the ANPV and the ICC-Preah Vihear, in accordance with the hope expressed by the Conference in its Resolution II. III. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROTOCOL OF 1954 50. With the exception of Belgium and Sweden, all of the remaining High Contracting Parties (Austria, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece and Switzerland) have adopted measures for the implementation of the 1954 First Protocol. 51. Austria mentions Section 34 of the Law on the Protection of Monuments. Canada refers to Article 37 of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. In Cyprus, a national Committee for the fight against looting and illegal trafficking of cultural heritage has been put in place. The report also mentions the Law on the return of cultural objects and the Nicosia Convention of the Council of Europe. Finland refers to Law 1135/1994 on the implementation of certain provisions of the Protocol for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict and on the application of the Protocol. France mentions Law no. 2016-925 of 7 July 2016 and Articles L. 111-8 and L. 111-10 of the Heritage Code. Greece reports Articles 34, 63 and 85 of Law 3028/2002 on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage In General. Switzerland cites the Law on the Protection of Cultural Property of 2015. 52. Georgia cites Article 37 of the Law on the Cultural Values of Georgia and Implementation of Georgia as well as the State Cultural Strategy. Latvia mentions Article 18.2 of the Law on the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Regulation 526 of the Council of Ministers on the recovery of illegally removed works of art and antiquities of 16 September 2003. Lithuania and Poland have declared the adoption of measures to prevent the import and export of cultural property from occupied territories. Slovakia cites public notice 15/1980 from the Slovakian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Law 416/2002. Slovenia cites the national Law on the return of illegally removed cultural objects. The Czech Republic mentions Directive 2014/60/EU of the European Parliament and Council on the return of cultural objects.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 13 53. Colombia mentions the Campaign for the prevention of illicit trafficking of cultural property, the General Law of Culture, inventories and Decree 390(2016) on the rules governing Customs. 54. In Japan, the law prohibits the importation of this cultural property without approval. Thailand mentions military orders for the Royal Armed Forces. African States (Group V(a)) 55. Nigeria reports measures to prevent the importation and exportation of cultural property from occupied territories as well as Memoranda of Understanding with other State Parties. IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECOND PROTOCOL OF 1999 1. General Provisions (Chapter 2) Article 5 - Safeguarding of cultural property 56. Article 5 of the Second Protocol supplements Article 3 of the Hague Convention by providing concrete examples of preparatory measures to be taken in time of peace. In view of the close connection between the two articles, certain Parties preferred to refer to the responses that they provided under Article 3. Others have elaborated their responses. These responses should therefore be read alongside the responses provided for Article 3. 57. Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece and Switzerland have reported the adoption of preparatory measures in order to organize the safeguarding of cultural property and in particular the elaboration of inventories. 58. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia have reported the adoption of preparatory measures to organize the safeguarding of cultural property and in particular the elaboration of inventories, registers, and councils specialized in the implementation of preventive measures and defensive exercises etc. 59. Argentina, Colombia, El Salvador and Honduras have reported the adoption of preparatory measures to organize the safeguarding of cultural property and in particular the elaboration of inventories.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 14 60. Cambodia and Japan have declared the adoption of preparatory measures to organize the safeguarding of cultural property and in particular the elaboration of inventories and the allocation of special statuses. African States (Group V(a)) 61. Nigeria declares that it has adopted preparatory measures such as the stationing of military personnel close to vulnerable cultural sites, documentation and inventories. 62. Morocco and Oman declare that they have adopted preparatory measures (inventories). Article 9 Protection of Cultural Property in Occupied Territory 63. The majority of the High Contracting Parties declared this provision to be inappropriate and non-applicable. Cyprus declared the implementation of measures concerning the protection of cultural heritage under military occupation. 64. Albania, Georgia and Slovenia declared having implemented provisions concerning the protection of cultural heritage within the framework of a military occupation. 65. Colombia, Honduras and Peru declared having adopted provisions concerning the protection of cultural heritage within the framework of a military occupation. 66. Japan and Thailand declared having adopted provisions concerning the protection of cultural heritage within the framework of a military occupation. Enhanced Protection (Chapter 3) 67. Belgium was the first State to submit a Tentative List. Austria, Greece and Switzerland expressed their interest and plan to submit applications for the granting of enhanced protection. 68. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic and Poland have implemented measures for requesting the granting of enhanced protection. Lithuania, Romania and Serbia expressed an interest in obtaining enhanced protection.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 15 69. Peru hopes to obtain enhanced protection for several cultural properties. In Argentina, a working group is assessing the possibility of requesting enhanced protection for certain cultural property. 70. Cambodia requested the enhanced protection system for the Angkor Archaeological Park. It intends to designate the APSARA as the authority responsible for the specific management of all aspects concerning the site, and ensure compliance with the Convention and its Protocols. 71. Japan is considering cultural property eligible for enhanced protection. African States (Group V(a)) 72. Nigeria wishes to request the granting of enhanced protection status and will put a mechanism in place if the protection is granted. 73. Oman wishes to apply for the granting of enhanced protection status. 2. Criminal Responsibility and Jurisdiction (Chapter 4) Articles 15 and 21 Violations of the Second Protocol 74. It should be noted that the responses provided below are not exhaustive, certain Parties referring to the responses provided under Article 28 of the 1954 Hague Convention. Western European and Other States (Group I) 75. The 8 High Contracting Parties (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece and Switzerland) reported having dealt with issues of criminal liability. 76. Austria cites 321c and 321e, paragraph 1, subparagraphs 2 and 4 of the Austrian Criminal Code, as well as Division 25 of the Austrian Criminal Code. Belgium mentions Articles 136quater, 3 and 136 quinquies of the Penal Code. Canada cites the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the National Defence Act through the military justice system and the Criminal Code of Canada. Cyprus and Finland have adopted penal sanctions. France mentions Articles 311-4-2, 322-3-1 and 461-13 to 431-17 of the Penal Code and Article 689-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Greece cites Articles 34, 53, 54, 56, 63 and 65 of Law 3028/2002 on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage In General, as well as Laws 3028/02 and 3658/2008. Switzerland mentions Articles 137, 144 and 264d, paragraph 1 of the Penal Code. 77. Armenia refers to the responses provided under Article 28 of the Convention. Bosnia and Herzegovina cites Article 180 of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article 321 and 322 of the Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Article 253 of the Criminal Code of the Republika Srpska. Georgia refers to its
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 16 Criminal Code. Lithuania cites Articles 106 and 111(1) of the Criminal Code, Article 91 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Protection of Immovable Cultural Property, Article 91 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Protection of Movable Cultural Property, Articles 189 part 2 and 199(1) of the Criminal Code, as well as Article 80 of the "Disciplinary Statute of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Lithuania". Poland mentions Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Romania refers to its Criminal Code of 2014. Serbia cites the Law on Defence and the Regulations of Service in the Serbian Army and Article 383 of the Criminal Code. Slovakia cites the Criminal Code 300/2005. Slovenia mentions Articles 218 and 219 of the Criminal Code. The Czech Republic refers to its Penal Code of 2009. 78. Argentina mentions Articles 184(5), 186(3) of the Penal Code. Brazil specifies that certain aspects are covered by national law. Colombia mentions Article 156 of Part II of the Penal Code. Peru refers to the Penal Code and the Military and Police Penal Code. 79. Japan cites the Law on Japanese Cultural Property of 2007. African States (Group V(a)) 80. Nigeria mentions Section 77 of the Act of 1979 and recalls a Bill brought to the Parliament. 81. Oman declares that it has adopted measures concerning the implementation of the article. Article 16 Jurisdiction 82. Austria recalls 57(1) of the statute of limitations for criminal liability as well as 63, 64, 64(1) (4c) and 65 of the Criminal Code. Belgium mentions Article 3 of the Criminal Code, the Law of 5 August 2003, which introduces the provisions in the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure (TPCPP), and finally Articles 6, 1 bis, 10bis and 12bis of the TPCPP. Canada cites the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the National Defence Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and 36.1(3) of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. Cyprus mentions Law no. 101(I)/2016. Finland refers to Chapter 1, Sections 1 (territoriality principle), 2 (principle of vessels under national flag), 6 (personality principle), 8 (principle of authority of criminal law) and 11 (principle of dual criminality) of the Criminal Code. France cites Article R. 689-11 of the Code of criminal procedure. Greece mentions the Law enabling ratification of the Second Protocol and Law 3028/2002 on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in general.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 17 83. Albania mentions Article 75(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Armenia refers to Articles 14 and 15 of the Criminal Code. Bosnia and Herzegovina cites the Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Estonia refers to 6, 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code of Estonia. Lithuania has made provision for universal jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 7, Criminal liability for offences provided for under international agreements of the Criminal Code. Poland mentions Articles 5 and 109 to 113 of the Criminal Code. Romania mentions Articles 8 to 12 of the Criminal Code. Serbia cites Article 383 of the Criminal Code. Slovakia refers to the Criminal Code 300/2005. The Czech Republic mentions Sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code. 84. Colombia refers to Article 35 of Law 906 of 2004 incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure. 85. Cambodia mentions Articles 12, 15, 16, 19 and 20 of the Criminal Code. Japan specifies that it has included appropriate provisions in the Criminal Code. 86. Oman mentions Article 49 of the Law on the Protection of National Heritage. Article 30 Dissemination of information 87. All of the 8 States Parties, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece and Switzerland, declared that they have disseminated the Second Protocol to civilians and military forces. 88. Albania, Estonia, Georgia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia declared that they have disseminated the Second Protocol to civilians and military forces. 89. Argentina, Colombia, El Salvador and Honduras declared that they have disseminated the Second Protocol to civilians and military forces. 90. Cambodia and Japan declared that they have disseminated the Second Protocol to civilians and military forces.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 18 African States (Group V(a)) 91. Nigeria declared that it has disseminated the Second Protocol to civilians and military forces. 92. Morocco declared that it has disseminated the Second Protocol to civilians and military forces. Article 32 International assistance 93. Belgium, Canada, Cyprus and France declare having shared their experiences and best practices. 94. Poland declares having shared its experiences and best practices. 95. Argentina, Brazil and Colombia declare having shared their experiences and best practices. 96. Japan declares having provided assistance to Iraq. African States (Group V(a)) 97. Nigeria declares having shared its best practices. 98. Oman declares that it has provided information concerning Article 32 but has not provided further details. Official Translation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 99. The 8 High Contracting Parties (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece and Switzerland) reported having translated the Second Protocol (1999).
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 19 100. Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia declared having translated the Second Protocol (1999). 101. Brazil has provided an official translation of the Second Protocol (1999). 102. Cambodia and Japan have provided an official translation of the Second Protocol (1999). Article 29 The Fund 103. Only States Parties having presented national reports for the 2013-2016 cycle are listed below as having contributed to the Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. 104. Finland and Greece contributed to the Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. 105. Only the Czech Republic contributed to the Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 20 VI. SELF-ASSESSMENT FORMS In the table below, the Secretariat has combined the responses provided by the States in order to determine the level of implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two Protocols. In order to assess the level of implementation, the following scale has been used: 1. Not implemented; 2. Partially implemented, the process has come to a standstill; 3. Partially implemented, the process is ongoing; and, 4. Fully implemented. Abbreviations used: NA: Not applicable / : the State did not provide any response In order to assess the difficulties encountered, the following scale is used: A. Difficulties have been encountered, however there are plans to request technical assistance from the UNESCO Secretariat; B. Difficulties have been encountered, nevertheless there are plans to make use of technical assistance from the UNESCO Secretariat; C. Difficulties had been encountered, but thanks to the technical assistance of the Secretariat they have been resolved; D. Difficulties had initially been encountered, but they turned into challenges that were overcome; and, E. No difficulties have been encountered. States Parties Implementation of the safeguarding obligation through the adoption of preparatory measures Training of military personnel on the regulations relating to the protection of cultural heritage Use of the distinctive emblem to indicate cultural property Implementation of the dissemination obligation, through the establishment of awareness-raising activities for target audiences Adoption of relevant criminal legislation WESTERN EUROPEAN AND OTHER STATES (GROUP I) 1 Austria 4-E 4-E 2-D 3-D 4-E /-/ 2 Belgium 3-D 4-D 3-D 4-E 4-D 3-A 3 Canada 4-E 4-E 1-NA 4-E 4-E NA 4 Finland 3-D 3-E 1-NA 3-D 4-E NA 5 France 4-E 3-E 1-A 4-E 3-A NA 6 Greece 3-D 3-D /-/ 3-D 3-E NA 7 Switzerland 4-E 4-E 4-E 4-E 4-E 4-E Establishment of a system to monitor cultural property under enhanced protection at national level
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 21 EASTERN EUROPEAN STATES (GROUP II) 8 Albania 3-B 3-D 3-E 3-C 2-D 4-B 9 Bosnia- 3-/ 3-/ 1-/ 3-/ 4-/ NA Herzegovina 10 Czech /-/ 4-E 2-C 4-E 4-E NA Republic 11 Estonia 3-/ 2-/ 1-/ 3-/ 4-/ NA 12 Latvia 4-E 4-E 4-E 4-E 4-E NA 13 Poland 3-D 4-E 4-E /-D /-E NA 14 Slovenia 4-E 3-E 3-E 3-E 4-E /-/ AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STATES (GROUP III) 15 Argentina 3-B 3-D 4-D 4-D 2-B /-/ 16 Brazil 4-D 1-A 1-A 3-E 4-E 3-/ 17 Colombia 2-B 4-E 1-D 2-D 4-E 2-B 18 El Salvador 3-D 3-E 3-C 3-D /-/ /-/ 19 Honduras 2-A 2-A 2-A 2-A 1-A /-/ ASIAN AND PACIFIC STATES (GROUP IV) 20 Japan 4-B 4-D /-D 4-D 4-B /-/ ARAB STATES (GROUP V(b)) 21 Morocco /-B /-/ 1-/ 2-/ 1-B /-/ 22 Oman 4-E 1-A 1-A 1-A 1-A 1-/
C54/17/12.COM/5.INF Annex 1 Page 22 VII. GRANTING OF ENHANCED PROTECTION OPINION SURVEY Article 10, paragraph (a) "Greatest importance for humanity" 106. Austria considers that the criterion of greatest importance for humanity must be understood as the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Convention. 107. Belgium refers to paragraphs 32 to 37 of the Guidelines to determine whether cultural property is of the greatest importance for humanity. 108. Canada considers that the criteria listed under paragraph 32-37 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the Second Protocol are adequate for determining whether a property is of the greatest importance for humanity. Any attempt to establish other relevant criteria carries the risk of accidentally excluding sites likely to be subject to applications in the future. For Finland, the criteria of Guidelines for the implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict already gives a good point of departure for determining the greatest importance for humanity. 109. According to France, the elements to be taken into account are listed under paragraphs 32 to 37 of the Guidelines for application of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention. It is also suggested that paragraphs 49 to 52 of the Guidelines for the implementation of the Convention of 1972 should be referred to. The report proposes the development of synergies between these instruments. 110. Greece considers that the following criteria could be taken into consideration for property: It has special historical, artistic, educational or scientific, social or spiritual value; It is significant in terms of rarity and has special value in a specific geographic area; It is a rare example of its kind or of its time; It is strongly associated with an important event or a historical personality; It is the first of its kind, or represents a major innovation; It has multiple heritage values; It possesses unusual, rare or threatened aspects of a certain culture; It has a special relation with the life or works of a person or group of persons of importance in world history; it is directly or materially associated with artistic and literary works of exceptional universal importance. 111. There may also be criteria specific to the type of cultural property in question, as is stated in Article 1 of the Convention. 112. For Switzerland, not all property registered on the World Heritage List are automatically placed under enhanced protection: the two systems cannot be perfectly balanced. Indeed, the Convention on the protection of world cultural heritage enables the protection of whole complexes and districts whereas the Hague Convention and its Second Protocol only list objects and groups of objects. In addition, the Convention on the Protection of Cultural Heritage only applies to immovable cultural property whereas the Second Protocol is valid for both movable and immovable cultural property. 113. For Switzerland, if the cultural property concerned is inscribed on the World Heritage List, the first criterion is met but if it is not included in this list, one must refer to the three conditions established in the Guidelines in order to determine the greatest importance