Practice Relating to Rule 38. Attacks against Cultural Property
Note: This rule concerns the prohibition of attacks on cultural property as part of the conduct of hostilities. For practice concerning damage to cultural property under one’s control see Rule 40. Although schools may be defined as cultural property, for ease of reference, practice concerning attacks against schools is included in Rule 7D.
Quick navigation
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 27 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides:
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity … provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand. 
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 27.

Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 27 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides:
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments … provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand. 
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 27.

Hague Convention (IX)
Article 5 of the 1907 Hague Convention (IX) provides:
In bombardments by naval forces all the necessary measures must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic, scientific or charitable purposes, … on the understanding that they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the inhabitants to indicate such monuments, edifices or places by visible signs, which shall consist of large, stiff rectangular panels divided diagonally into two coloured triangular portions, the upper portion black, the lower portion white. 
Hague Convention (IX) concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 5.

Roerich Pact
Article 1 of the 1935 Roerich Pact provides:
The historic monuments, museums, scientific, artistic, educational and cultural institutions shall be considered as neutral and as such respected and protected by belligerents …
The same respect and protection shall be accorded to the historic monuments, museums, scientific, artistic, educational and cultural institutions in time of peace as well as in war. 
Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (Roerich Pact), Washington, D.C., 15 April 1935, Article 1.

Article 5 of the 1935 Roerich Pact provides:
The monuments and institutions mentioned in Article 1 [historic monuments, museums, scientific, artistic, educational and cultural institutions] shall cease to enjoy the privileges recognized in the present Treaty in case they are made use of for military purposes. 
Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments (Roerich Pact), Washington, D.C., 15 April 1935, Article 5.

Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property defines cultural property, for the purposes of the Convention, irrespective of origin or ownership, as:
(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;
(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a);
(c) centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), to be known as “centres containing monuments”. 
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Article 1.

Article 4 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties … by refraining from any act of hostility directed against such property.
2. The obligations mentioned in paragraph 1 of the present Article may be waived only in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver. 
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Article 4.

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).

Article 28 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to take, within the framework of their ordinary criminal jurisdiction, all necessary steps to prosecute and impose penal or disciplinary sanctions upon those persons, of whatever nationality, who commit or order to be committed a breach of the present Convention. 
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Article 28.

Additional Protocol I
Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is 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. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 53. Article 53 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 206.

Article 85(4)(d) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I considers the following a grave breach of the Protocol:
making the clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement, for example, within the framework of a competent international organization, the object of attack, causing as a result extensive destruction thereof, where there is no evidence of the violation by the adverse Party of Article 53, sub-paragraph b), and when such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 85(4)(d). Article 85 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 291.

Additional Protocol II
Article 16 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, it is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to use them in support of the military effort. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 16. Article 16 was adopted by 35 votes in favour, 15 against and 32 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.53, 6 June 1977, p. 143.

ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(ix) and (e)(iv) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[i]ntentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, [or] historic monuments … provided they are not military objectives” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(ix) and (e)(iv).

Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 1(b) of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property states that the term “cultural property” means “cultural property as defined in Article 1 of the [1954 Hague] Convention”. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 1(b).

Article 6 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
With the goal of ensuring respect for cultural property in accordance with Article 4 of the [1954 Hague] Convention:
(a) a waiver on the basis of imperative military necessity pursuant to Article 4 paragraph 2 of the Convention may only be invoked to direct an act of hostility against cultural property when and for as long as:
(i) that cultural property has, by its function, been made into a military objective; and
(ii) there is no feasible alternative available to obtain a similar military advantage to that offered by directing an act of hostility against that objective;

(c) the decision to invoke imperative military necessity shall only be taken by an officer commanding a force the equivalent of a battalion in size or larger, or a force smaller in size where circumstances do not permit otherwise;
(d) in case of an attack based on a decision taken in accordance with sub-paragraph (a), an effective advance warning shall be given whenever circumstances permit.  
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 6.

Article 7 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
Without prejudice to other precautions required by international humanitarian law in the conduct of military operations, each Party to the conflict shall:
(a) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are not cultural property protected under Article 4 of the Convention;
(b) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental damage to cultural property protected under Article 4 of the Convention;
(c) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental damage to cultural property protected under Article 4 of the Convention which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; and
(d) cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent:
(i) that the objective is cultural property protected under Article 4 of the Convention;
(ii) that the attack may be expected to cause incidental damage to cultural property protected under Article 4 of the Convention which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 7.

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:

(c) extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol;
(d) making cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol the object of attack.
(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.

Article 22(1) of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property states: “This Protocol shall apply in the event of an armed conflict not of an international character, occurring within the territory of one of the Parties.” 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 22(1).

Back to top
Lieber Code
Article 35 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides:
Classical works of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious instruments, such as astronomical telescopes, as well as hospitals, must be secured against all avoidable injury, even when they are contained in fortified places whilst besieged or bombarded. 
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 35.

Brussels Declaration
Article 17 of the 1874 Brussels Declaration provides:
In such cases [of bombardment of a defended town or fortress, agglomeration of dwellings, or village] all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to art, science, or charitable purposes, hospitals … provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings by distinctive and visible signs to be communicated to the enemy beforehand. 
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874, Article 17.

Oxford Manual
Article 34 of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides:
In case of bombardment all necessary steps must be taken to spare, if it can be done, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science and charitable purposes … on the condition that they are not being utilized at the time, directly or indirectly, for defense.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings by visible signs notified to the assailant beforehand. 
The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, Article 34.

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.

Hague Rules of Air Warfare
Article 25 of the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare provides:
In bombardment by aircraft, all necessary steps must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible buildings dedicated to public worship, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments … provided such buildings, objects or places are not at the time used for military purposes. Such buildings, objects and places must by day be indicated by marks visible to aircraft …
A belligerent who desires to secure by night the protection for the hospitals and other privileged buildings above mentioned must take the necessary measures to render the special signs referred to sufficiently visible. 
Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare, Part II, drafted by a Commission of Jurists, The Hague, December 1922–February 1923, Article 25.

Article 26 of the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare provides:
The following special rules are adopted for the purpose of enabling States to obtain more efficient protection for important historic monuments situated within their territory, provided that they are willing to refrain from the use of such monuments and a surrounding zone for military purposes, and to accept a special regime for their inspection.
(1) A State shall be entitled, if it sees fit, to establish a zone of protection round such monuments situated in its territory. Such zones shall, in time of war, enjoy immunity from bombardment.
(2) The monuments round which a zone is to be established shall be notified to other Powers in peace time through the diplomatic channel; the notification shall also indicate the limits of the zones. The notification may not be withdrawn in time of war.
(3) The zone of protection may include, in addition to the area actually occupied by the monument or group of monuments, an outer zone, not exceeding 500 metres in width, measured from the circumference of the said area.
(4) Marks clearly visible from aircraft either by day or by night will be employed for the purpose of ensuring the identification by belligerent airmen of the limits of the zones. 
Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare, Part II, drafted by a Commission of Jurists, The Hague, December 1922–February 1923, Article 26.

ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)
Pursuant to Article 22(2)(f) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[w]ilful attacks on property of exceptional religious, historical or cultural value” constitute exceptionally serious war crimes. 
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-third session, 29 April–19 July 1991, UN Doc. A/46/10, 1991, Article 22(2)(f).

Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 6 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia provides that hostilities shall be conducted in accordance with Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 6.

Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.5 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina provides that hostilities shall be conducted in accordance with Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 2.5.

ICTY Statute
Article 3(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute includes among the violations of the laws or customs of war in respect of which the Tribunal has jurisdiction: “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”. 
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).

Revised Lauswolt Document
Article 1(2) of the 1997 Revised Lauswolt Document states: “It is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against cultural property.” 
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(2).

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:
The United Nations force is prohibited from attacking monuments of art, architecture or history, archaeological sites, works of art, places of worship and museums and libraries which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.  
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.

UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(ix) and (e)(iv), “[i]ntentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, [or] historic monuments … provided they are not military objectives” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(ix) and (e)(iv).

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides:
In the event of bombardment, assault or siege, all necessary precautions shall be adopted, as far as possible, to respect buildings devoted to worship, the arts, the sciences and to charity, as well as historic monuments, provided such buildings and monuments, which must display special, visible signs, are not used for military purposes. 
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, § 1.010.

The manual further states, with respect to combat operations:
The destruction of enemy property shall be permissible as far as required by military operations and subject to the limitations imposed by the requirement of respect for artistic, scientific and historical property. 
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, § 1.018.

Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) defines cultural property in accordance with Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 4.43.

The manual states: “It is absolutely prohibited to commit hostile acts against cultural property.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 4.44.

The manual further qualifies “attacks directed against clearly recognized cultural property” as a grave breach. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.03.

With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “Cultural objects and places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples enjoy special protection; they may not be attacked.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 7.09.

Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states:
Additional Protocol I and specific cultural property conventions generally prohibit attacks against historical, religious and cultural objects and buildings. However, this protection may be lost if the facility is used for military purposes, e.g. a museum or church that contains an enemy sniper may be attacked to neutralise the threat. Care must be taken to ensure that only reasonable force is used. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 409.

The manual further states:
960. LOAC provides that buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, and historic monuments are immune from attack so long as they are not being used for military purposes and are marked with distinctive and visible signs and notified to the adverse party.
961. LOAC also extends immunity to cultural property of great importance to cultural heritage. This is irrespective of origin, ownership or whether the property is movable or immovable. LOAC requires such property to be protected, safeguarded and respected and not made the object of reprisals. Such protection is not absolute and is lost if cultural property is used for military purposes. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, §§ 960–961.

Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states:
926. LOAC provides for the specific protection of cultural objects and places of worship, which supplements the general protection given to civilian objects. Buildings dedicated to religion, science or charitable purposes, and historic monuments, are given immunity from attack as far as possible, so long as they are not being used for military purposes. Such places are to be marked with distinctive and visible signs which must be notified to the other party.
927. 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 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.
928. Historic monuments, places of worship and works of art, which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples, are protected from acts of hostility. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 926–928; see also §§ 540–542.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
5.45 Buildings devoted to religion, the arts, or charitable purposes; historic monuments; and other religious, cultural, or charitable facilities should not be attacked, provided they are not used for military purposes. It is the responsibility of the local population to ensure that such buildings are clearly marked with the distinctive emblem.

9.27. The LOAC provides for the specific protection of cultural objects and places of worship, which supplements the general protection given to civilian objects. Buildings dedicated to religion, science or charitable purposes, and historic monuments, are given immunity from attack as far as possible, so long as they are not being used for military purposes. Such places are to be marked with distinctive and visible signs which must be notified to the other party.
9.28. 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 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.
9.29. Historic monuments, places of worship and works of art, which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples, are protected from acts of hostility. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 5.45 and 9.27–9.29; see also § 5.46.

The manual also states that in the context of siege warfare:
Buildings devoted to religion, art, [and] science … should not be made the specific subject of attack unless they are being used for military purposes, subject to warning requirements. The besieged population should indicate by visible signs the buildings or places to be protected and should notify the attacking force of these signs. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.36.

In its chapter on “Compliance”, the manual states:
13.26 G. P. I [1977 Additional Protocol I] extends the definition of grave breaches to include the following … acts, when committed wilfully and in violation of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or the Protocol:

- making the clearly recognised historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement, the object of attack, causing as a result extensive destruction thereof, where there is no evidence that the adverse party is using such objects in support of the military effort and when such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives

13.30 Among other war crimes generally recognised as forming part of the customary LOAC are:

- attacking a privileged or protected building. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 13.26 and 13.30.

The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states that “an adversary must abstain for all acts of hostility towards” cultural property under general protection but is “liberated of its obligations if the State, in whose territory the cultural property is located, uses it for military purposes”. 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 29.

Belgium’s Teaching Manual for Soldiers states:
Certain objects and buildings must not be attacked. Unless an order to the contrary has been given, they must be avoided. This concerns buildings with a high cultural value (churches, museums, libraries, etc.) and the persons who guard them. 
Belgium, Droit de la Guerre, Manuel d’Instruction pour Officiers, Etat-Major Général, Division Opérations, 1994, p. 8; see also p. 22 and slides 6b/1 and 6b/4.

Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states:
Marked cultural property whose immunity has been lifted for reasons of military necessity must, nevertheless, be respected to the extent permitted by the tactical situation. If not already done, the distinctive emblems used to mark the protected property whose immunity has been lifted must be removed.  
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 8.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Military Instructions (1992) provides that “it is prohibited to expose cultural facilities to military activities and undertake any kind of hostile actions which may result in their damage or destruction”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Instructions on the Implementation of the International Law of War in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Official Gazette of ABiH, No. 2/92, 5 December 1992, Item 9, § 1.

Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) provides that, according to the customs of war, soldiers in combat must “spare buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purpose, and historic monuments, provided they are not being used for military purposes”. 
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(1).

Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “Cultural objects are generally protected.” 
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. 7; see also Part I bis, p. 39.

Under the heading “Protected Objects”, the Regulations also states:
Civilian objects benefit from general protection:
Civilian objects must not be attacked.

This protection is directed at:
1. Cultural objects and objects of worship.
Cultural objects are objects representing a high cultural value (e.g. historic monuments, works of art).
Objects of worship are defined as objects for important religious use independently of any cultural value (e.g. places of worship, temple). 
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. 35; see also Part I bis, pp. 5, 21, 58, 68, 86 and 115.

The Regulations further states that “an unlawful attack against clearly recognizable cultural objects” constitutes a grave breach of IHL. 
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. 68; see also Part I bis, pp. 45 and 115.

Moreover, the Regulations states:
The imperative, unavoidable or absolute necessity to attack these [cultural] objects must be determined at a very high level of command. Even then, the adverse party must be informed sufficiently in advance of the decision to lift the immunity of these objects. 
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. 87.

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) provides that each soldier must “spare buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, and historic monuments … provided they are not being used for military purposes”. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 31.

Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) distinguishes between “cultural property and places of worship … which represent a high cultural value or which have an important religious dedication whose immunity may not be withdrawn … and which require no special marking” on the one hand, and “marked cultural property” on the other hand. 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 19, § 224.

Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “During military operations, certain so-called protected zones can be established by agreement between the belligerents … These include: … centres containing monuments (particularly cultural objects under special protection) …” 
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, p. 224–225, § 533.

The manual also states that “an unlawful attack against clearly known cultural objects” constitutes a grave breach of IHL. 
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. 295–296, § 661.

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;

These rules apply to the extent possible to operations undertaken by airplanes and navy ships against targets on land or at sea. 
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) 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.

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, the manual also states:
Marked cultural property whose immunity has been lifted for reasons of military necessity must, nevertheless, be respected to the extent permitted by the tactical situation. If not already done, the distinctive emblems used to mark the protected property whose immunity has been lifted must be removed. 
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 II, Section II, § 2.1.

Also in Volume 2, the manual states: “Cultural property (places of worship, museums, etc.) displaying the protective signs must be respected. Only military commanders and the civilian authorities may lift the immunity of 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 IV, Section IV.

Volume 2 further 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.

In Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police), the manual states:
Specially protected objects [including cultural property] may not:

- be attacked.
The immunity of generally protected cultural property may be lifted only in case of imperative military necessity.
The immunity of specially protected cultural property may be lifted only in exceptional cases of unavoidable military necessity. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter I, Section II, § 2.2.

Also in Volume 3, the manual states:
During an attack (exceptional case of unavoidable military necessity), and if the tactical situation permits, the lifting of the immunity of a cultural object identified by three distinctive signs will be limited in time and restricted to the least important parts of the cultural object.  
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section 2.

Volume 3 further states:
In defence (exceptional case of unavoidable military necessity), and if the tactical situation permits, the lifting of the immunity of a cultural object identified by three distinctive signs will be limited in time and restricted to the least important parts of the cultural object. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section 2.

The Central African Republic’s Disciplinary Regulations (2009) states:
In accordance with the international conventions signed or approved by the Central African Government, it is stipulated that during combat servicemen must … spare buildings dedicated to religion, art, science and charitable purposes, as well as historic monuments, unless these are used for military purposes. 
Central African Republic, Décret 09.411 portant règlement de discipline générale dans les Armées, Ministre de la Défense Nationale, des Anciens Combattants, des Victimes de Guerre, du Désarmement et de la Restructuration de l’Armée, 10 December 2009, Article 12(10).

Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that cultural property must be protected. 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 16; see also pp. 26 and 47.

The manual also states that “Specially protected property must not become military objectives … or be attacked.” 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 93.

The manual also states that “places of worship” must not be attacked. 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 35.

The manual further states that attacks on “cultural property” are a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and thus a war crime. 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 108.

Colombia
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) considers that “abstaining from attacks against objects … which are part of its culture” is a way to protect the civilian population. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 22, § 2; see also p. 29, § 2(a).

The manual defines cultural property as
all the objects that are the expression of a people’s culture and that, because of their importance, must be protected against the effects of hostilities (monuments of architecture, archaeological sites, works of art, manuscripts, museums, archives, libraries, etc.). 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, pp. 25–26, § 3.

Congo
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) provides: “Buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, and historic monuments must be spared, provided they are not being used by the enemy for military purposes.” 
Congo, Décret No. 86/057 du 14 janvier 1986 portant Règlement du Service dans l’Armée Populaire Nationale, 1986, Article 32.

Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book I (Basic instruction):
Lesson 1. Basic notions of IHL

The principle of distinction specifies who and what can be attacked and who and what cannot be attacked.

- Who and what must be protected?

- cultural property and sites: monuments, places of worship, museums,

Lesson 2. Identification

II.2 Persons and objects under special protection

- cultural property and sites: monuments, places of worship, museums,

Lesson 3. Rules of behaviour in combat

[Basic Rule No. 11]:
Respect persons and objects bearing

- the signs marking cultural property,

[Observation]:
These persons and objects benefit from a special protection according to the Geneva Conventions. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 13–15, 17, 19, and 21–22; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre II: Instruction du gradé et du cadre, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 16; 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, p. 39; 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, p. 66.

In Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers), the Teaching Manual provides:
II.2.3 Protection of cultural property and places of worship
Cultural property are objects which as such represent a high cultural value and the objects of important religious purpose, independent of any cultural value.
Historic monuments, works of art and places of worship which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples enjoy complete protection. Their immunity cannot be waived, in contrast to that of marked cultural property. Their value is generally sufficient and does not require special means of identification.
Cultural property under general protection means cultural property of great importance to the cultural heritage of any people such as:
- monuments of architecture, art or history; archaeological sites;
- buildings whose main purpose is to preserve movable cultural property (museums, large libraries);
- centres containing a large number of buildings.
Cultural property under special protection means property of exceptional value such as:
- refuges for cultural property,
- centres containing immovable cultural property,
- cultural property of high importance. 
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, p. 30.

In Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders), the Teaching Manual provides:
II.2.1. Cultural property and places of worship
The following acts are prohibited:
- 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. 
Côte d’Ivoire, 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, p. 35.

Croatia
According to Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991), acts of hostility against cultural objects are prohibited. However, cultural objects under general protection lose their immunity in cases of imperative military necessity. The existence of such necessity must be established by the local commander. 
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 10.

The Compendium further qualifies “unlawful attacks on cultural objects” as war crimes. 
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 56.

Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) states:
13. Specifically protected objects … may not be attacked.
14. The immunity of a marked cultural object may be withdrawn in case of imperative military necessity.

55. [In attack] the immunity of a marked cultural object shall only be withdrawn when the fulfilment of the mission absolutely so requires. Advance warning shall give time for safeguard measures and information on withdrawal of immunity.

69. Marked cultural objects whose immunity has been withdrawn shall still be respected to the extent the fulfilment of the mission permits. 
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, §§ 13–14, 55 and 69.

Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states: “Cultural objects and places of worship are … protected.” 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 32.

Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) instructs soldiers:
You may not attack certain types of property. You are required to take as much care as possible not to damage or destroy buildings dedicated to cultural or humanitarian purposes or their contents. Examples are buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes; historical monuments; hospital and places where the sick and wounded are collected and cared for; and schools and orphanages for children. These places are considered protected property as long as they are not being used at the time by the enemy for military operations or purposes. 
Dominican Republic, La Conducta en Combate según las Leyes de la Guerra, Escuela Superior de las FF. AA. “General de Brigada Pablo Duarte”, Secretaría de Estado de las Fuerzas Armadas, May 1980, p. 4.

Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) provides:
Buildings devoted to religion, the arts, or charitable purposes, historic monuments and other religious, cultural or charitable facilities should not be bombarded, provided they are not used for military purposes. 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 8.5.1.6; see also § 8.6.2.2 (protected objects).

Ethiopia
According to Ethiopia’s Standing Rules of Engagement (2007), “historical places, places of spiritual and cultural heritage, works of art and places of worship” do not constitute military objectives. 
Ethiopia, Standing Rules of Engagement, National Defense Force, Addis Ababa, 2007, § 8.4.8.

France
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, provides that soldiers in combat must “spare buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, and historic monuments, provided they are not being used for military purposes”. 
France, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Armées, Decree No. 75-675 of 28 July 1975, replacing Decree No. 66-749, completed by Decree of 11 October 1978, implemented by Instruction No. 52000/DEF/C/5 of 10 December 1979, and modified by Decree of 12 July 1982, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-Major de l’Armée de Terre, Bureau Emploi, Article 9 bis (1).

France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) provides: “The specific immunity granted to certain persons and objects by the law of war [including marked cultural property] must be strictly observed … They may not be attacked.” 
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, §§ 2.2–2.3.

The manual further states:
The immunity of specifically protected objects may only be lifted under certain conditions and under the personal responsibility of the commander. Military necessity justifies only those measures which are indispensable for the accomplishment of the mission. 
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 2.4.

The manual qualifies “attacks against marked property” as a war crime. 
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 3.4.

France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) states that “the law of armed conflict grants specific protection to certain specially marked installations and zones”, including certain works and installations containing dangerous forces. 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 5.

The Teaching Note further states:
In general, cultural property (religious building, place of worship, monument, museum, important work of art …) is protected. Its immunity may be lifted only in case of imperative military necessity and according to an order received from a higher authority. In such a case, prior warning must be given to allow the civilian population to seek refuge or to evacuate the combat area. The means of combat must be proportionate in order to limit, as much as possible, damage to such cultural property. 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 6.

France’s LOAC Manual (2001) restates the definition of cultural property set out in Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 29.

The manual adds:
The protection enjoyed by such property may be lifted only if military necessity so demands or if such property is used for military purposes by the enemy. Only a commander of a division or larger unit has the authority to lift the immunity. This measure must be notified to the adverse party sufficient time in advance. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 30.

Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides:
901. The term “cultural property” means, irrespective of origin or ownership, movable or immovable objects of great importance to the cultural heritage of all peoples (e.g. monuments of architecture, art or history, be they of secular or religious nature, archaeological sites and collections).
902. Apart from this actual cultural property, a number of indirect cultural objects shall also be protected. These indirect cultural objects include:
– buildings for preserving or exhibiting cultural property (museums, archives etc.);
– refuges intended to shelter cultural objects; and
– centres containing monuments, i.e. centres containing a large amount of cultural property.
Protected cultural objects in the Federal Republic of Germany are documented in regional Lists of Cultural Objects which are available with the territorial command authorities.
903. … Any acts of hostility directed against cultural property shall be avoided.
904. In addition, civilian objects, such as churches, theatres, universities, museums, orphanages, homes for the elderly and other objects, shall also be spared as far as possible, even if they are of no historical or artistic value.
905. General protection shall be granted to all cultural objects and does not require any entry in a special register. Cultural property placed under general protection shall neither be attacked nor otherwise damaged …
906. An exception to this rule shall be permissible only in cases of imperative military necessity. The decision is to be taken by the competent military commander. Cultural property which the enemy uses for military purposes shall also be spared as far as possible. 
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, §§ 901–906; see also § 463.

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’s IHL Manual (1996) states:
Movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people (e.g. architectural, artistic or historical monuments, places of worship, libraries) shall neither be attacked nor damaged in any other way. 
Germany, ZDv 15/1, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, DSK VV230120023, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, June 1996, § 701.

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.

If cultural property is used for military purposes it loses its protection and becomes a military objective. It shall nevertheless be spared as far as possible. 
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.

Greece
The Hellenic Territorial Army’s Internal Service Code (1984), as amended, provides:
[Members of the armed forces] are obliged not to destroy historical monuments as well as buildings destined for religious worship, arts, sciences and charity, provided they are not used for military purposes. 
Greece, Hellenic Territorial Army Regulation of Internal Service Code, Presidential Decree 130/1984 (Military Regulation 20-1), as amended, Article 14(d).

The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides:
1. … [T]he provisions of the otherwise obsolete IX Hague Convention concerning the respect and protection of the victims of armed conflict should be considered as bearing a perpetual binding effect.
2. To the above effect, the significance of the codified text of IX Hague Convention is great and the following provisions should be applied by the belligerents:

b. In bombardments by naval forces, all the necessary measures must be taken by the commander to spare, as far as possible, sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic, scientific or charitable purposes, [and] historic monuments …(art.5). 
Greece, International Law Manual, Hellenic Navy General Staff, Directorate A2, Division IV, 1995, Chapter 7, Part II, §§ 1–2.

Guinea
Guinea’s Soldier’s Manual (2010), under the heading “Distinctive signs”, shows an image of a building with a blue shield and states: “Leave these buildings, establishments, [and] monuments untouched.” 
Guinea, Soldier’s Manual, Ministry of National Defence, 2010, p. 13.

Under the heading “Rules of conduct in combat”, the manual also states: “Respect … property marked: … with the emblem designating cultural property.” 
Guinea, Soldier’s Manual, Ministry of National Defence, 2010, p. 16.

Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) provides that cultural property comprises both religious and secular cultural objects representing the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples. Their protection may only be withdrawn in case of “imperative military necessity” under the authority of a commander. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 21.

The manual qualifies “unlawful attacks on cultural objects” as war crimes. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 90.

Indonesia
Indonesia’s Air Force Manual (1990) provides that “places of worship, cultural objects and places used for humanitarian purposes must not be attacked nor made the target of air bombardment, unless they are used for military purposes and that there is no obvious sign of such objects”. 
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law in Air Warfare, Indonesian Air Force, 1990, § 60(c).

The manual does not refer to any specific level of protection for cultural property, but states: “It is prohibited to destroy cultural objects and places of worship.” 
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law in Air Warfare, Indonesian Air Force, 1990, § 127(e).

Israel
With reference to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states: “The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] does not intentionally target historic monuments, works of art or places of worship.” It further points out: “The policy may not apply in cases of such structures being used for hostile purposes or in cases in which military necessity imperatively requires otherwise.” 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 4.3, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 6.

Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states, in a section entitled “Places of prayer and cultural property”:
These are buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or similar property that form a part of the spiritual heritage of a people. Though one could maintain that the existence of such edifices has an impact on the military morale of the adversary’s side, they are not considered a legitimate target.
A provision imposing the obligation to spare such buildings in the course of war, inasmuch as possible, appeared for the first time in the Hague Conventions. The massive destruction of cultural property during World War II (ancient bridges, cathedrals) resulted in the laws of war devoting a convention, following the war, to define the ban on attacking or damaging cultural property, known as the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. IDF [Israel Defense Force] soldiers are obligated to comply with this convention whenever it is likely to be relevant, by virtue of GHQ Regulation 33.0133. It clearly follows from here, that an attack on mosques or churches, which pose no direct danger to our armed forces, is prohibited. 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, pp. 33–34.

Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
Shrines and cultural property: These are the structures devoted to religion, beliefs or knowledge and constitute part of the spiritual or cultural heritage of a people. It is possible to claim, nevertheless, that these structures affect the military morale of the opposing side, but they are not considered as legitimate targets. The provision imposing the duty to spare such structures as far as possible during hostilities first appeared in the Hague Rules. Following the massive destruction of cultural property during World War II (ancient bridges, cathedrals) a convention was formulated in The Hague in 1954 for the protection of cultural property. The soldiers of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] are compelled to act everywhere according to this Convention by virtue of the General Staff Order 33.1033. This clearly shows that attacks are forbidden on mosques or churches which are not perceived as posing a threat to our forces. The Convention defines cultural property as “property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every nation, such as architectural, art or historical monuments, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or reproductions of the property”. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, pp. 24–25.
[emphasis in original]
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) states:
13. Specifically protected objects … may not be attacked.
14. The immunity of a marked cultural object may be withdrawn in case of imperative military necessity.

55. [In attack] the immunity of a marked cultural object shall only be withdrawn when the fulfilment of the mission absolutely so requires. Advance warning shall give time for safeguard measures and information on withdrawal of immunity.

69. Marked cultural objects whose immunity has been withdrawn shall still be respected to the extent the fulfilment of the mission permits. 
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, §§ 13–14, 55 and 69.

Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states: “Cultural property and places of worship are entitled to protection in all circumstances provided they are not illicitly used for military purposes.” 
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, § 12.

The manual qualifies “indiscriminate attacks against … cultural property” as a war crime. 
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, § 85.

Italy’s Combatant’s Manual (1998) states:
Cultural Objects and the personnel responsible for their care are protected by the emblem “Quartered shield in the form of a white and blue Saint Andrew’s cross” (simple protection).

IT IS PROHIBITED to carry out hostile acts of any kind against people and objects protected by this emblem; your Commanding Officer can legitimately order you to ignore the protection accorded to a Cultural Object if there is a compelling military need to do so or if the cultural object is being used by enemy military forces.

If the protective emblem appears three times, the Cultural Object is subject to special protection.
In this case, the order to violate the protective emblem can be given by a Commanding Officer no lower in rank than Major-General. 
Italy, Manuale del Combattente, SME 1000/A/2, Stato Maggiore Esercito/Reparto Impiego delle Forze, Ufficio Dottrina, Addestramento e Regolamenti, 1998, § 245.
[emphasis in original]
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states:
Objects representing a high cultural value, or with an important religious dedication independent of any cultural value, such as historical monuments, works of art and places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, enjoy full protection. Their immunity may not be withdrawn, contrary to that of marked cultural objects. Their value is generally self-evident and does not require special identification means.
Other objects representing a cultural value as such, independently of their religious or secular character, may come under:
(a) general protection; or
(b) special protection. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, p. 12.

The manual further states:
Certain property and buildings must not be attacked except when an order to the contrary has been given. This comprises buildings of cultural value (temples, museums, libraries, etc.) and the persons who look after them. 
Kenya Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, p. 15.

The manual specifies:
In attack, withdrawal of immunity of cultural objects marked with distinctive protective signs (in the exceptional case of unavoidable military necessity) shall, when the tactical situation permits, be limited in time and restricted to the less important parts of the object. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, p. 8.

Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states:
Historic monuments, works of art and places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples enjoy full protection. Their immunity may not be withdrawn, contrary to that of marked cultural objects. 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 3-SO, § F.

With respect to marked cultural property, defined in accordance with Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, the manual states: “The immunity of marked cultural property may be withdrawn in case of imperative military necessity.” 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 3-O, § 14 and Fiche No. 3-SO, § G; see also Fiche No. 6-O, §§ 26 and 36, Fiche No. 7-O, § 14.

Mali
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) provides that, according to the laws and customs of war, soldiers in combat must “spare buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, and historic monuments, provided they are not being used for military purposes”. 
Mali, Règlement du Service dans l’Armée, 1ère Partie: Discipline Générale, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 1979, Article 36.

Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009), in a section on the 1977 Additional Protocols, states: “Acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art and places of worship … are prohibited.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 255.

Morocco
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) provides that, according to the laws and customs of war, soldiers in combat must “spare buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, and historical monuments, provided they are not being used for military purposes”. 
Morocco, Règlement de Discipline Général dans les Forces Armées Royales, Dahir No. 1-74-383 du 15 rejeb 1394, 5 August 1974, Article 25(1).

Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands restates the definition of cultural property provided for in Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. The manual states that respect for cultural objects implies that “no acts of hostility may be committed against them” but that an exception can be made “in case military necessity requi res such an exception. Hence, the protection is not at all absolute”.  
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. V-6, § 5.

The manual further provides that “attacking marked historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which are protected” in violation of IHL constitutes a grave breach. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IX-6.

With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “Acts of hostility against historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are prohibited.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. XI-7.

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.

The IFOR Instructions (1995) of the Netherlands provides: “It is also prohibited to attack property with a strictly civilian or religious character, unless this property is used for military purposes.” 
Netherlands, IFOR Instructiekaart, geweldsinstructie, First Edition, 18 December 1995, § 12.

The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands states that it is prohibited to attack “buildings that are used for worship, museums, historical monuments and other important cultural objects, unless they are used by the enemy for military purposes”. 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-36.

The manual further states: “Cultural property, such as historical monuments, places of worship and museums may not be attacked, damaged or destroyed.” 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-43.

The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “The belligerents must, in particular, spare monuments, works of art, scientific collections, museums etc.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0225.

In its chapter on behaviour in battle, the manual states:
0526. Respect for cultural property implies that … hostile acts against such property must be avoided …

0527. Exceptions
Exceptions to the respect for cultural property may be allowed only on specific conditions. An attack may be directed at cultural property only in a case of unavoidable military necessity, if that cultural property, by virtue of its function, has changed into a military objective and there is no practical alternative means of obtaining equal military advantage. In a case of unavoidable military necessity, cultural property may be used for military purposes only if no practical and feasible alternative approach exists to such military use.
0528. Whether imperative military necessity exists may be determined only by the commanding officer of a unit of battalion size or of higher rank. If no other option exists in the circumstances, a commanding officer of lower rank may also take such a decision. In the case of an attack on cultural property as defined above, it must be possible in some way to give suitable advance warning.

0529. Precautionary measures in case of attacks
In combat operations, everything practically possible should be done to make sure that the objectives to be attacked are not cultural property …

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, §§ 0526–0529 and 0531–0532.

In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
Hostile actions (deliberate attacks) against historic monuments, works of art and places where religious services are held are prohibited, provided that they do not constitute military objectives. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1034.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) restates Article 27 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and refers to Article 5 of the 1907 Hague Convention (IX). It then quotes the definition of cultural property found in Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property and points out: “The protection of cultural property is not, however, absolute. If cultural property is used for military purposes, an opposing belligerent is released from the obligation to ensure immunity so long as the particular violation persists.” The manual further states that for many of the parties to the 1907 Hague Regulations, the 1907 Hague Convention (IX) and the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, “their protection and obligations are overlaid by the protection and obligations of [Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. With respect to this overlap, the manual notes:
At the time [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] was being negotiated it was clear, therefore, that not all historical, cultural and religious establishments are protected by this article; only such places as the Blue Mosque, the Coliseum, St. Paul’s Cathedral, the Dome of the Rock, and the like. The special protection is confined to a limited class of objects which, because of their recognised importance, constitute a part of the cultural heritage of mankind. This approach may be regarded as culturally narrow today and could well result in a move to widen the protection. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 520 and footnote 78; see also § 632.

The manual further qualifies the following act as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
making the clearly-recognised historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been accorded by special arrangement, the object of attack causing extensive destruction thereof, where there is no evidence of prior use of such objects in support of the adverse Party’s military effort, and when such places are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1703(4)(d); see also § 1703(5) (“attacking a privileged or protected building”).

With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual restates Article 16 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1822.

Nigeria
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) provides 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”. 
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, § 4(f).

Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states: “In an attack, steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to public worship, art, science or charitable purposes and historic monuments.” 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 13.

The manual qualifies “bombardment of … privileged buildings” as a war crime. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 6.

Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
In attack, a waiver of immunity for cultural property marked with the triple distinctive sign must be limited in time and confined to the least important parts of it, when the tactical situation permits. Such a waiver is only permitted in exceptional cases of unavoidable military necessity.
It is recommended that similar measures and rules of conduct be applied to cultural property marked with the single distinctive sign (imperative military necessity). 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 29.t.

The manual also states: “Commanders … must specify under what circumstances the immunity granted to marked cultural property may be withdrawn owing to military necessity.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 24.d.(1).

The manual further states: “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 also 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.

With regard to air warfare, the manual states:
In bombardments by aircraft, all necessary steps should be taken by the commander to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to public worship, art, science, and charitable purposes, historic monuments … provided that such buildings, objectives and places are not being used at the same time for military purposes.  
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 172.h.

The manual also incorporates the provisions contained in Article 26 of the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare for the establishment of zones of protection for “monuments of great historic value”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 172.i; see also §§ 27.h.(1).(b) and 104.b.

Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states in its Glossary of Terms:
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.

Also in its Glossary of Terms, the manual states: “Immunity: Principle of the law of armed conflict which confers special protection on … cultural objects.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, p. 257.

The manual also states:
In attack, a waiver of immunity for cultural property marked with the triple distinctive sign must be limited in time and confined to the least important parts of it, when the tactical situation permits. Such a waiver is only permitted in exceptional cases of unavoidable military necessity.
It is recommended that similar measures and rules of conduct be applied to cultural property marked with the single distinctive sign (imperative military necessity). 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 30(t), p. 244; see also § 31(w), p. 247; §§ 13–14, p. 419 and § 55, p. 424.

The manual further states:
In defence, a waiver of immunity (in exceptional cases of imperative military necessity) for cultural property marked with three distinctive signs must be limited in time and confined to the least important parts of it, when the tactical situation permits.
Appropriate safeguard measures must be taken ([such as] evacuation or increasing the distance, instruments of protection, suppressing distinctive signs to avoid confusion). The objective of a prior warning is to clarify the situation for the attacker.
Analogous measures and conduct are recommended with respect to cultural objects marked with a single distinctive sign (imperative military necessity). 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 31(w), p. 247.

The manual further states: “Commanders … must specify … under what circumstances the immunity granted to marked cultural property may be withdrawn owing to military necessity.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 25(d)(1), p. 228.

The manual also states:
The immunity of a marked cultural object may only be suspended if absolutely required to fulfil the mission.
The cessation of the immunity shall only take place to the extent necessary. Prior warning and the removal of the distinctive signs ensures that the situation is clear to the enemy. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 62, p. 425.

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.

With regard to air warfare, the manual states:
In bombardments by aircraft, all necessary steps should be taken by the commander to protect, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to public worship, art, science, and charitable purposes, historic monuments … provided that such buildings, objectives and places are not being used at the same time for military purposes. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 163(h), p. 343.

With regard to naval warfare, the manual states: “The following enemy vessels may not be attacked: … vessels used for the transport of cultural objects under special 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, § 120(a)(4), p. 310.

In its Glossary of Terms, the manual states: “The following are protected persons under international law: … Personnel assigned to the protection of cultural property.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § g, p. 411.

The manual further states:
95. Protected areas
Pre-established protected areas are established by agreement between the parties to the conflict or can be internationally recognized, such as:

b. Centres which contain monuments (mainly cultural objects under special 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, § 95(b), p. 290.

Philippines
The Soldier’s Rules (1989) of the Philippines instructs soldiers to respect all objects bearing “emblems designating cultural property”. 
Philippines, Soldier’s Rules, in Handbook on Discipline, Annex C(I), General Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City, 1989, § 10.

The Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) of the Philippines states that members of the armed forces and the national police shall respect all objects bearing “emblems designating cultural property”. 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, § 2(a)(5).

The Philippines’ AFP Standing Rules of Engagement (2005) states:
8. General Rules for the Correct Use of Force towards Mission Accomplishment

(g) Cultural, religious and historical landmarks, civilian population centers, public utilities and other non-military structures, shall be protected and shall not be attacked except when they are used for military purposes. 
Philippines, AFP Standing Rules of Engagement, Armed Forces of the Philippines, General Headquarters, Office of the Chief of Staff, 1 December 2005, § 8(g).

Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Military Law Manual (2005) provides that special attention shall be paid to cultural property during armed conflicts. 
Republic of Korea, Military Law Manual, 1996, p. 87.

The Republic of Korea’s Operational Law Manual (1996) provides that marked cultural properties shall be respected as long as possible. 
Republic of Korea, Operational Law Manual, 1996, p. 134.

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) states that “the bombardment by military aircraft or vessels of historic monuments [and] churches … which are undefended and not used for military purposes” and “the destruction of cultural property, historical monuments, places of worship, and other buildings which represent the cultural or spiritual heritage of a people” are prohibited methods of warfare. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 5(n) and (s).

The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
The prohibited methods of warfare include … destroying cultural property, historic monuments, places of worship and other objects of cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, as well as using them for the purpose of achieving success in combat operations. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 7.

The Regulations further states:
cultural property enjoying special protection includes cultural property entered into the International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection. From the time of entry in the Register, the parties to a conflict shall refrain from any act of hostility directed against this property, as well as from any use of such property or its surroundings for military purposes. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 1.

With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “It is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against cultural property.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 85.

Senegal
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) provides that soldiers in combat must “spare buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, and historic monuments, provided they are not being used for military purposes”. 
Senegal, Règlement de Discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret 90-1159, 12 October 1990, Article 34(1).

Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) states:
It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove unlawfully or render useless any cultural objects.
Attacking or destroying unlawfully a clearly marked cultural property is a grave breach of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I …
Attacking or making these places an object of military operation is a grave crime. 
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, pp. 51–52.

South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states that “attacking clearly recognised historic monuments, works of art or places of worship and causing extensive damage where these objects have not been used in support of the military effort” constitutes a grave breach of IHL. 
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 38(a).

South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states: “Protected places include … buildings dedicated to religion [and] cultural objects such as historical monuments. Misuse of protected places for military purposes may make them the subject of an armed attack”. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 51(b).

The manual also provides that “[a]ny unlawful attack on a clearly recognised protected object” is a grave breach of the law of armed conflict and a war crime. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 57.

Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) defines cultural objects in accordance with Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 1.3.d.(1).

The manual states that “the immunity of cultural property under general protection may only be lifted in case of imperative military necessity”. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 2.4.b.(2); see also § 7.3.b.(2).

The manual also states: “Historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples may not be the object of acts of hostility. They may not be attacked, destroyed or damaged.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 4.5.b.(2)(b); see also § 7.3.b.(2).

The manual further states that “launching an attack against cultural property which is not located in the vicinity of military objectives which causes extensive damage to such property” constitutes a war crime. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 11.8.b.(1).

Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) defines cultural property in accordance with Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. 
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, § 1.3.d.(1).

With regard to its protection from attack, the manual states:
The immunity granted to cultural property under general protection may be waived only “in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver”. However, military necessity is subject to the condition that the waiver may only be invoked when and for as long as there is no feasible alternative.
The decision to withdraw immunity from cultural property under special protection can only be taken at division commander level or higher “in exceptional cases of unavoidable 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, § 2.4.b.(2); see also § 4.5.b.(2).(a); see also § 7.3.b.(2).(a).
[emphasis in original]
The manual further states:
Acts of hostility must not be directed against monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples. They must not be attacked, destroyed or damaged. 
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); see also § 7.3.b.(2).(a).

The manual also states that it is prohibited to attack personnel engaged in the protection of cultural property:
As far as is consistent with the interests of security, such personnel must be respected and, if they fall into the hands of the opposing party, allowed to continue to carry out their duties. 
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.(1).(b).

Sweden
Sweden’s Military Manual (1976) states that it is forbidden to wilfully destroy cultural property such as museum collections, churches, historical monuments and other cultural sites. 
Sweden, Folkrätten – Internationella regler i krig, Blhang Svensk soldat, 1976, p. 30.

Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) states:
Since the Second World War, great interest has been devoted to creating protection in international law for cultural values. According to the 1954 Hague Convention on the protection of cultural values, the parties shall respect cultural objects of different kinds so that these may receive protection as far as possible – exceptions are made if military necessity can be claimed. By cultural values are understood according to the Convention both fixed and movable property of great importance for a people’s cultural and spiritual heritage. As such are considered buildings of historical or religious importance, collections of historically important buildings, museums and libraries, works of art, books and scientific collections. The Convention also contains precise rules for the marking of buildings, historic monuments, etc., and provisions covering the storage of movable cultural objects in special shelters … A condition is that none of these cultural values may be used for military purposes. If this should happen, the adversary is no longer obliged to extend protection to these objects.
During the [CDDH] it was again wished to introduce rules for protecting cultural objects. Initially, it was not clear whether the protection should include all or only certain cultural objects in a country waging war. Some states wished the provisions of the cultural convention to be supplemented so that all objects of this nature would receive specific safeguards. Other states, however, reacted strongly against including all churches and historic buildings, etc. in the protected category. A rule like this would have been very difficult to follow in practice, which would probably have meant the protection being weakened. The final solution was that only those cultural values that were considered to belong to a people’s “cultural and spiritual heritage” would be included in this special protection.
The new provision in Additional Protocol I (AP I Art. 53) could be seen as a replacement for the 1954 Cultural Convention, which, however, is not at all the intention. The Additional Protocol article is only intended to be a confirmation of the rules existing in a much more precise form in the 1954 Convention. A further reason for introducing Article 53 was that many states had not ratified the 1954 Convention.
All civilian objects enjoying special protection according to Articles 53–56 also have general protection according to Article 52, but this is clearly stated in the Protocol text only in the case of the places used for religious purposes … As Article 53 aims at giving these objects protection equivalent to that of hospitals, the intention has obviously been that no such object shall be used for military purposes of any kind. If such an object should be so used, there is no longer any requirement upon the adversary to respect the safeguard.
This is not, however, the same as saying that an attack may be launched against, for example, a cathedral or national museum without further ado. The party contemplating such an attack must first judge whether the object can, according to the criteria of Article 52:2, make an effective contribution to its adversary’s military operations; and above all whether their total or partial destruction would afford a clear military advantage. The commander who is to make these assessments should also bear in mind that a wilful attack on the object in question may later be judged to be a grave breach of international humanitarian law (AP I Art. 85:4).
In Article 53 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] it is not only prohibited to attack the protected objects but to commit any kind of “hostile act” whatsoever against them, and this is a more far-reaching commitment. This can in fact also be taken to imply prohibition of intentional destruction instigated by one’s own authorities. Burnt earth tactics, which are a permitted method of combat, may thus not include destruction of one’s own cultural objects, which are safeguarded according to Article 53. It follows both from Article 53 and from the interpretation of some Western states that only the most important objects of a historical, cultural or religious nature may enjoy the protection of the article. In practice, therefore each party to Additional Protocol I must select which objects it considers shall enjoy this qualified protection. Additional Protocol I does not, however, state how this selection is to be made. One suitable way would be to select the objects using the criteria given in the Cultural Convention of 1954. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, pp. 56–58.
[emphasis in original]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Teaching Manual (1986) states that the immunity enjoyed by cultural property under general protection “may be lifted, in case of imperative military necessity, by a responsible commander”. 
Switzerland, Droit des gens en temps de guerre, Programme d’instruction fondé sur le Manuel 51.7/III “Lois et coutumes de la guerre”, Cours de base pour recrues de toutes les armes 97.2f, Armée suisse, 1986, p. 88.

Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states:
Art. 52. Cultural property consists of movable and immovable property of great importance for the cultural heritage.
Art. 53. In the event of armed conflict, the cultural property, movable or immovable, located in the territory of a Party to the conflict must be respected and safeguarded.
Art. 54. The obligation to respect may only be derogated from in case military necessity imperatively so demands. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Articles 52–54; see also Article 30(b).

The manual qualifies the following act as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
making the clearly recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement, for example, within the framework of a competent international organization, the object of attack, causing as a result extensive destruction thereof, where there is no evidence of the violation by the adverse Party of Article 53, sub-paragraph b), and when such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 193(2)(d).

Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states:
Marked cultural property whose immunity has been lifted for reasons of military necessity must, nevertheless, be respected to the extent permitted by the tactical situation. If not already done, the distinctive emblems used to mark the protected property whose immunity has been lifted must be removed. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule II, p. 8.

Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that personnel responsible for the defence and protection of cultural property are “protected under international humanitarian law” and that directing attacks against such persons or “clearly identifiable cultural property” constitutes “a serious violation of international humanitarian law”. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.2.33 and 1.8.5.

The manual provides the following definitions regarding cultural property:
1.2.39. “Cultural property” means objects of great importance to the cultural heritage of peoples that play an important role in their spiritual life (such as monuments of architecture and history; works of art; religious or secular monuments; archaeological sites; museums; libraries; archives; theatres).

1.2.41. “Personnel engaged in the protection of cultural property” means persons charged with the task to protect cultural property. Such personnel [are] authorized to possess personal small arms for self-defence. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.2.39 and 1.2.40; see also § 1.2.51.

The manual further states:
1.2.40. Cultural property of exceptional importance is guaranteed special protection. The number of such objects is limited and they are included in the International Register of Cultural Property under Special Protection.

1.3.2. The following methods of warfare shall be prohibited:

- destruction of cultural property, historical sites, places of religion, objects, constituting the cultural or spiritual heritage of the people; it is also prohibited to use such objects to succeed in the warfare. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.2.40 and 1.3.2; see also § 1.2.51.

The manual also states that during the conduct of hostilities:
2.2.4 … In exceptional circumstances … the commander (commanding officer) may designate:
- the direction of the main attack (primary effort) that includes objects protected under international humanitarian law;
- withdrawal of immunity of cultural property in case of its use by the enemy and fire damage to the enemy positioned at the objects protected by the laws of war.

The decision to withdraw protection from cultural property that enjoys special status … shall be made by a commander at least of the level of brigade commander (or of an equal level).

2.3.1.3. In case of military necessity … withdrawal of immunity of cultural property shall be limited in time and concern the least important parts thereof. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 2.2.4 and 2.3.1.3; see also § 1.2.51.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958), while distinguishing between undefended and defended towns, states that a defended town is open to bombardment, subject to the limitations deriving from the principle of distinction, namely, “churches and monuments duly marked by signs … must not be deliberately attacked if they are not used for military purposes”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 290.

The manual further states:
300. Although the bombardment of the private and public buildings of a defended town or fortress is lawful, all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to public worship, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments.
301. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs which must be notified to the enemy beforehand.

303. Buildings for which inviolability is thus claimed must not be used at the same time for military purposes, for instance, as offices and quarters for signalling stations or observation posts. If this condition is violated, the besieger is justified in disregarding the [protective] sign … Thus the bombardment of Strasbourg Cathedral in 1870 was generally held to have been justified for the reason that an artillery observation post was established in its tower. A similar position arose when the Abbey of Monte Cassino was shelled and bombed by the Allies in 1943. It was alleged that the Germans used the Abbey as an observation post and store for military rations and ammunition. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, §§ 300–301 and 303, and footnote 2.

The manual further states:
In addition to the ‘grave breaches’ of the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … the following are examples of punishable violations of the laws of war, or war crimes:

(o) bombardment of … privileged buildings. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 626(o).

The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states:
In sieges, bombardments or attacks precautions must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, important works of art … provided they are not being used for military purposes. Buildings of this sort should be distinctively marked, clearly identifying them as places to be spared. If a cathedral, museum or similar building is used for some military purpose then it may become a proper military target and there may be no alternative but to destroy it. 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 4, p. 15 § 7.

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
5.25. It is 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;

5.25.1 In general, all civilian objects are protected. However, the protection of cultural property and places of worship is given special emphasis in the law of armed conflict, both in respect of protection from attack and in respect of discouraging their use for military purposes, so that the need to attack such property does not arise.
5.25.2. Because of its wording, the prohibition … only applies to very important cultural property of international stature … Property loses its protection if it is used for military purposes. … [M]aking clearly recognized cultural property the object of an attack can amount to a grave breach of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] if the property is subject to special protection, extensive destruction is caused, the property has not been used for military purposes and it is not in the immediate proximity of a military objective …
5.25.3. [The 1977 Additional] Protocol I needs to be read in conjunction with the Cultural Property Convention, even for states not party to the latter, because an attack on cultural property is regarded as an aggravated form of attack on a civilian object, thus necessitating special care in operational planning. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 5.25–5.25.3.

With regard to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, the manual 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.

In its chapter on air operations, the manual states that “[c]ultural objects are specially protected”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 12.26.

With regard to internal armed conflict, the manual states:
15.18. It is prohibited:
a. to commit any act of hostilities against cultural property, so long as it is not being used for military purposes …
15.18.1. Cultural property includes places of worship, institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments, and works of art and science.
15.18.2. Cultural property that is civilian property must be respected in any event. In addition, the Cultural Property Convention 1954 and the Second Hague Protocol 1999 apply in internal armed conflicts.
15.18.3. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science, or charitable purposes, and historic monuments, provided they are not military objectives, is a war crime. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 15.18–15.18.3; see also § 15.52 (on situations in which Additional Protocol II is applicable).

In its chapter on enforcement of the law of armed conflict, the manual refers to “attacking a privileged or protected building” as a war crime “traditionally recognized by the customary law of armed conflict”.  
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.29.

The manual further notes:
Additional Protocol I extends the definition of grave breaches to include the following:

c. the following, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the protocol:

(4) making the clearly recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement, the object of attack, causing as a result extensive destruction thereof, where there is no evidence that the adverse party is using such objects in support of the military effort and when such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.25.

United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) reproduces Article 27 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. 
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, § 45.

The manual also recalls that the United States is party to the 1935 Roerich Pact, “which accords a neutralized and protected status to historic monuments, museums, scientific, artistic, educational and cultural institutions in the event of war”. 
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, § 57.

The US Rules of Engagement for the Vietnam War (1971) stated:
(1) The enemy has shown by his actions that he takes advantage of areas or places normally considered as nonmilitary target areas. These areas are typified by those of religious background or historical value to the Vietnamese. When it is found that the enemy has sheltered himself or has installed defensive positions in such places or in public buildings and dwellings, the responsible senior brigade or higher commander in the area may order an attack to insure prompt destruction of the enemy. The responsible commander must identify positive enemy hostile acts either in the execution or preparation. Weapons and forces used will be those which will insure prompt defeat of enemy forces with minimum damage to structures in the area.
The exception to this policy is the palace compound in the Hue Citadel. For this specific area, commanders will employ massive quantities of CS agents and will take all other possible actions to avoid damage to the compound. 
United States, Rules of Engagement for the Employment of Firepower in the Republic of Viet-Nam, US Military Assistance Command Viet-Nam, Directive No. 525-13, May 1971, unclassified contents reprinted in Eleanor C. McDowell, Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1975, US Department of State Publication 8865, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 814–815, § 6(c).

The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states:
Buildings devoted to religion, art, or charitable purposes as well as historical monuments may not be made the object of aerial bombardment. Protection is based on their not being used for military purposes … When used by the enemy for military purposes, such buildings may be attacked if they are, under the circumstances, valid military objectives. Lawful military objectives located near protected buildings are not immune from aerial attack by reason of such location but, insofar as possible, necessary precautions must be taken to spare such protected buildings along with other civilian objects. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 5-5(c).

The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980) states:
During military operations, reasonable measures should be taken to avoid damaging religious and cultural buildings, such as churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, museums, charitable institutions, historic monuments, archaeological sites, and works of art. These structures may lawfully be attacked if the enemy uses them for military purposes, though even then, the rules of engagement may place additional restrictions on US military operations. During World War II, for example, the Japanese city of Kyoto was never subjected to bombing because of the many historic and cultural monuments in the city. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-34, Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Judge Advocate General, US Department of the Air Force, 25 July 1980, § 3-5(a).

The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) instructs soldiers:
Don’t attack protected property. You are required to take as much care as possible not to damage or destroy buildings dedicated to cultural or humanitarian purposes or their contents. Examples are buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes; historical monuments; hospital and places where the sick and wounded are collected and cared for; and schools and orphanages for children. These places are considered protected property as long as they are not being used at the time by the enemy for military operations or purposes. 
United States, Your Conduct in Combat under the Law of War, Publication No. FM 27-2, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, November 1984, p. 9.

The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) states:
And remember that in attacks and shellings all necessary measures must be taken to spare, as far as possible, nonmilitary facilities to include buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes. The same applies to historic monuments and hospitals, provided these buildings and places are not being used for military purposes. 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, p. 7.

The manual further states: “In addition to the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the following acts are further examples of war crimes: … firing on facilities which are undefended and without military significance such as churches.” 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, p. 13.

The US Rules of Engagement for Operation Desert Storm (1991) states: “Churches, shrines, schools, museums, national monuments, and any other historical or cultural sites will not be engaged except in self-defense.” 
United States, Desert Storm – Rules of Engagement, Pocket Card, US Central Command, January 1991, reprinted in Operational Law Handbook, International and Operational Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1995, pp. 8-7 and 8-8, § C.

The US Naval Handbook (1995) provides:
Buildings devoted to religion, the arts, or charitable purposes; historic monuments; and other religious, cultural or charitable facilities should not be bombarded, provided they are not used for military purposes. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 8.5.1.6; see also § 8.6.2.2 (protected objects).

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.

The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007), Part IV, Crimes and Elements, defines protected property as follows:
The term “protected property” means property specifically protected by the law of war (such as buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, or places where the sick and wounded are collected), if such property is not being used for military purposes or is not otherwise a military objective. Such term includes objects properly identified by one of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, but does not include civilian property that is a military objective. 
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C. §§ 948a, et seq., 18 January 2007, Part IV, § 6(a)(3), p. IV-3.

The manual includes in the list of crimes triable by military commissions:
ATTACKING PROTECTED PROPERTY.
a. Text. “Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally engages in an attack upon protected property shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”
b. Elements.
(1) The accused engaged in an attack;
(2) The object of the attack was protected property;
(3) The accused intended such protected property to be an object of the attack;
(4) The accused knew or should have known of the factual circumstances that established the property’s protected status; and
(5) The attack took place in the context of and was associated with armed conflict.
c. Comment. The intent required for this offense precludes its applicability with regard to collateral damage or death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.
d. Maximum punishment. Confinement for 20 years. 
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C. §§ 948a, et seq., 18 January 2007, Part IV, § 6(4), p. IV-5.

The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “Buildings devoted to religion, the arts, or charitable purposes; historic monuments; and other religious, cultural, or charitable facilities should not be bombarded, provided they are not used for military purposes.” 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 8.9.1.6.

The US Manual for Military Commissions (2010), Part IV, Crimes and Elements, defines protected property as follows:
The term “protected property” means property specifically protected by the law of war (such as buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments …), if such property is not being used for military purposes or is not otherwise a military objective. Such term includes objects properly identified by one of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, but does not include civilian property that is a military objective. 
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of Chapter 47A of Title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009, 10 U.S.C, §§ 948a, et seq., 27 April 2010, § 1(a)(3), p. IV-1.

The manual includes in the list of crimes triable by military commissions:
ATTACKING PROTECTED PROPERTY.
a. Text. “Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally engages in an attack upon protected property shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”
b. Elements.
(1) The accused engaged in an attack;
(2) The object of the attack was protected property;
(3) The accused intended such protected property to be an object of the attack;
(4) The accused knew or should have known of the factual circumstances that established the property’s protected status; and
(5) The attack took place in the context of and was associated with hostilities.
c. Comment. The intent required for this offense precludes its applicability with regard to collateral damage or death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.
d. Maximum punishment. Confinement for 20 years. 
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of Chapter 47A of Title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009, 10 U.S.C, §§ 948a, et seq., 27 April 2010, § 5(4), p. IV-5.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) prohibits the exposure of cultural property to combat actions and hostile acts which could destroy or damage the cultural property and obliges officers to assist in the preservation of cultural property on the basis of information received from the enemy. It permits attacks on cultural property “in case of military need”, but places this exemption under the limitation that the “authority to make such a decision rests with high officers, division commanders and higher ranks”. It further states that cultural property used for military purposes is deprived of its immunity, regardless of proper marking, as long as such a situation lasts. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, §§ 86–87.

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: “Leave these buildings, establishments, monuments untouched”. 
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.

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Code of Military Justice (1951), as amended in 1984, punishes “whoever attacks, without any necessity, … poorhouses, places of worship, monasteries, schools … which are marked by the appropriate distinctive signs” or “whoever destroys places of worship, monasteries, libraries, museums, archives or important works of art, unless required by the military operations”. 
Argentina, Code of Military Justice, 1951, as amended in 1984, Articles 746(2) and 746(3) respectively.

Armenia
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), it is a crime against the peace and security of mankind to make, during an armed conflict,
the clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been granted, the object of attack, causing as a result extensive destruction thereof, when such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives and where there is no evidence of the use of such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship by the enemy for military purposes. 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 390.4(4).

Australia
Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2002, provides that “a person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence”. 
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 2002, Section 7(1).

The grave breaches provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended in 2007, states with regard to serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.46 War crime – attacking protected objects
A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator directs an attack; and
(b) the object of the attack is any one or more of the following that are not military objectives:
(i) buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes;
(ii) historic monuments;
… and
(c) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on 1 November 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 177 of 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.46, p. 331.

The Criminal Code Act further states with regard to serious violations of the laws and customs of war applicable in a non-international armed conflict:
268.80 War crime – attacking protected objects
A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator directs an attack; and
(b) the object of the attack is any one or more of the following that are not military objectives:
(i) buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes;
(ii) historic monuments;

(c) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on 1 November 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 177 of 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.80, pp. 356–357.

The Criminal Code Act also states with regard to war crimes that are grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
268.101 War crime – attacking protected objects
A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator directs an attack; and
(b) the object of the attack is any one or more of the following that are not used in support of the military effort and are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives:
(i) clearly recognised historic monuments;
(ii) works of art;
(iii) places of worship; and
(c) the monuments, works of art and places of worship constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and have been given special protection by special arrangement (for example, within the framework of a competent international organisation); and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on 1 November 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 177 of 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.101, p. 372.

Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “attacking protected objects … that are not military objectives [including] buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes [and] historic monuments” in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, §§ 268.46 and 268.80; see also § 268.101 (grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I).

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “directing attacks against specially protected historic, religious, educational, scientific [or] charitable … [buildings and] monuments, which are easily seen and distinguishable … without any military necessity” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 116(8).

Belarus
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that it is a war crime to “direct attacks, without any military necessity, against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which are clearly recognized and enjoy special protection”. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 136(8).

Belgium
Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

34. directing attacks against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been accorded by virtue of a special arrangement, provided that there is no evidence of the adverse party having violated the prohibition of using such objects in support of the military effort, and where such objects are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(34).

The Penal Code further states that the following also constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title: “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments … provided they are not military objectives”. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(35).

The Penal Code also states:
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: making cultural property under enhanced protection the object of attack …  
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 3(1).

Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1993), as amended in 1999, provides that it is a crime under international law to direct attacks against:
clearly recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement, where there is no evidence of the adverse party having violated the prohibition of using such objects in support of the military effort, and where such objects are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1993, as amended in 1999, Article 1(3)(20).

Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

20. directing attacks against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been accorded by virtue of a special arrangement, provided that there is no evidence of the adverse party having violated the prohibition of using such objects in support of the military effort, and where such objects are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(20).

The Law further states that the following also constitute crimes under international law, and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title: “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments … provided they are not military objectives”. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(21).

The Law also states:
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:
1. making cultural property under enhanced protection the object of attack. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 3(1).

Bulgaria
Bulgaria’s Penal Code (1968), as amended in 1999, provides that it is a “crime against the laws and customs of waging war” to destroy, damage or make unfit, in violation of the rules of international law for waging war, “cultural or historical monuments and objects, works of art, buildings and equipment intended for cultural, scientific or other humanitarian purposes”. 
Bulgaria, Penal Code, 1968, as amended in 1999, Article 414(1).

Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
[The following are] considered as war crimes:

B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

i) launching deliberate attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments … , as long as these buildings are not military objectives;

D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

d) launching deliberate attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments …, as long as these buildings are not military objectives. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(i) and (D)(d).

Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:
“War crimes” means crimes which are committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular:

2. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

9°. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, … provided they are not military objectives;

5. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

4°. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, … provided they are not military objectives. 
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 198(2)(9°) and (5)(4°).

Canada
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).

Chile
Chile’s Code of Military Justice (1925) provides for a prison sentence for “anyone who, contrary to instructions received, unnecessarily and maliciously … destroys places of worship, libraries, museums, archives or remarkable works of art”. 
Chile, Code of Military Justice, 1925, Article 261(2).

China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “destroying religious, charitable, educational, historical constructions or memorials” constitutes a war crime. 
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(27).

Colombia
Colombia’s Military Penal Code (1999) punishes “anyone who during military service and without proper cause, destroys buildings, places of worship, archives, monuments or other public property”. 
Colombia, Military Penal Code, 1999, Article 174.

Colombia’s Penal Code (2000) provides for the punishment of
whoever, at the occasion of and during armed conflict, attacks or destroys, without any justification based on imperative military necessity, and without previously taking adequate and opportune measures of protection, historical monuments, works of art, educational institutions or places of worship, constituting the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, which are duly marked with the conventional signs. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 156.

Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes set out in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.

Cook Islands
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands punishes “any person who in the Cook Islands or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Cook Islands, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act, 2002, Section 5(1).

Croatia
According to Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), it is a war crime to destroy “cultural objects or facilities dedicated to science, art, education or those established for humanitarian purposes”. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 167(1).

The 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 special protection of international law”. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 167(2).

Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended in 2006, states that a war crime is committed by “whoever violates the rules of international law in time of war, armed conflict or occupation by ordering [or committing] an attack against objects protected by international law”. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 158(2).

Cuba
Cuba’s Penal Code (1987) provides for the punishment of “anyone who intentionally destroys, damages or renders useless an object declared to be part of the cultural heritage or a national or local monument”. 
Cuba, Penal Code, 1987, Article 243.

Cyprus
Cyprus’s Additional Protocol I Act (1979) punishes “any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic any grave breach of the provisions of the Protocol, or takes part or assists or incites another person in the commission of such a breach”.  
Cyprus, Additional Protocol I Act, 1979, Section 4(1).

Czech Republic
The Czech Republic’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1999, provides for the punishment of “a commander who, contrary to the provisions of international law on means and methods of warfare, intentionally: … (d) destroys or damages … a monument internationally-recognized as being of cultural importance”. 
Czech Republic, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1999, Article 262(2)(d).

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).

Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Military Penal Code (2002) provides:
Article 165
Crimes against humanity are grave violations of international humanitarian law committed against any civilian population before or during war.
Crimes against humanity are not necessarily linked to the state of war and can be committed not only between persons of different nationality, but even between subjects of the same State.
Article 166
The grave breaches listed hereafter, affecting, by action or omission, the persons and objects protected by the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, constitute crimes against humanity, repressed according to the provisions of the present Code, without prejudice to more severe penal provisions provided by the ordinary Penal Code:

18. Making the clearly-recognized historic monuments, archives, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement the object of attack, where there is no evidence of the violation by the adverse Party of the prohibition on using these objects in support of the military effort, and when these objects are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives.
Article 167
The offences contained in the preceding article are punished with penal servitude for life.
If those contained in points 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 to 14 of the same article lead to the death or cause grave injury to the physical integrity or health of one or several persons, the perpetrators are liable to the death penalty.

Article 169
Any of the following acts, perpetrated as part of a widespread or systematic attack knowingly directed against the Republic or the civilian population, equally constitutes a crime against humanity and is punished by death, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war:

10. Destruction of the universal natural or cultural heritage. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Articles 165–167 and 169.

Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Code of Military Justice (1953) provides for the punishment of any soldier who, “without necessity, attacks … places of worship … which are recognizable by the signs established for such cases”. 
Dominican Republic, Code of Military Justice, 1953, Article 201(2).

Estonia
Under Estonia’s Penal Code (2001), “the destruction [or] damaging … 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) attack [against] 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 Penal Code (1994), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes common to both international and non-international armed conflicts:
Intentionally launching attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, [or] historical monuments … provided that they are not used for military purposes, is punishable by 20 years’ imprisonment. 
France, Penal Code, 1994, as amended in 2010, Article 461-13.

Georgia
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), “destruction or damage of historical monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples” in an international or non-international armed conflict is a punishable crime. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 411(1)(j).

Georgia’s Law on Cultural Heritage (2007) states:
Article 1. Purpose of the Law.
This 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 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 a 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.

Germany
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) provides for the punishment of:
whoever in connection with an international armed conflict or with an armed conflict not of an international character … directs an attack by military means against … buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes [or] historic monuments. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 11(1)(2).

Hungary
Under Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, “a military commander who, in violation of the rules of international law concerning warfare, carries out military operations which result in heavy damage to … internationally protected cultural property” commits a war crime. 
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 160(a).

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:
a) makes cultural property under international protection the object of attack;

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.

Iraq
Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) identifies the following as a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts:
Intentionally directing attacks against buildings which do not constitute military objectives, and are dedicated to religious, educational, artistic, scientific or charitable purposes, or against historic monuments. 
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(j) and (4)(d).

Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 3(1).

The Act adds that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 53, as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 16, are also punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, 1962, Section 4(1) and (4).

Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) provides a list of “Soldiers Rules”, one of which is: “Respect all cultural objects and places of worship.” 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 13.

Italy
Italy’s Wartime Military Penal Code (1941) punishes a commander who
omits to adopt measures provided for by the laws or by international conventions regarding respect for: … historical monuments and buildings intended for science, art, charity or for practising religion, provided that they are not at the same time used for military purposes and that they are marked by means of the distinctive signs foreseen by the international conventions, or in any case previously communicated to the enemy, and easily recognizable even from a great distance and at high altitude.  
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, Article 179(1).

The Code further provides for the punishment of anyone who, in enemy territory and without military necessity, “sets fire to or destroys or seriously damages historical monuments, works of art or science, i.e., monuments dedicated to religion, charity, education, arts or science belonging to the enemy State”. 
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, Article 187.

Japan
Japan’s Law concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (2004) states:
In situations and armed conflict … a person who, without justifiable reason, in an act of hostility, destroys either a historic monument, work of art or place of worship that is designated as an important cultural property in Cabinet Orders, shall be punished by imprisonment with labour for not more than 7 years. 
Japan, Law concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 2004, Article 3.

Japan’s Law concerning the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (2007) states:
1. In the situations enumerated below, a person who damages national cultural properties or cultural properties of the states parties to the Second Protocol [1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property] during combat, without legitimate reason, shall be sentenced to not more than seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour.
a. A situation of armed conflict between the states parties to the Second Protocol or between a state party to the Second Protocol and a non-state party which accepts the application of the said Protocol.
b. A situation of occupation of a territory of a state party to the Second Protocol by another state party to the said protocol, of a territory of a state party to the Second Protocol by a non-state party which accepts the application of the said Protocol, or a territory of a non-state party which accepts the application of the Second Protocol by a state party to the said Protocol.
c. A situation of armed conflict as provided in Article 22(1) [armed conflicts not of an international character] of the Second Protocol. 
Japan, Law concerning the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 2007, Article 7(1)(a)–(c).

Jordan
Under Jordan’s Antiquities Law (1966), it is prohibited “to destroy, disfigure or cause any harm to antiquities”. 
Jordan, Antiquities Law, 1966, Article 9.

Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states that the following shall be deemed a war crime when committed in the event of armed conflict:
Intentionally directing attacks against historic monuments, buildings dedicated to religion and places of worship, works of art, provided they are not used for military purposes or are located directly near military objectives. 
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 41(a)(18).

Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan’s Criminal Code (1997) provides for the punishment of anyone who “intentionally destroys historical and cultural monuments”. 
Kyrgyzstan, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 172.

Latvia
Latvia’s Criminal Code (1998) provides for the punishment of “intentional destruction of objects classified as cultural or national heritage”. 
Latvia, Criminal Code, 1998, Section 79.

Lithuania
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, the “destruction of historical monuments, cultural or religious objects, protected under international or state internal legal acts, which cannot be justified as military necessity … [and] which has caused extensive damage” constitutes a war crime. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 339.

Mali
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “deliberate attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, arts, science or charitable activities, provided that such buildings are not used for military purposes,” constitute a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(9).

Mexico
Mexico’s Code of Military Justice (1933), as amended in 1996, provides for the punishment of a soldier who, without any imperative military necessity so demanding, “destroys libraries, museums, archives, aqueducts and important works of art”. 
Mexico, Code of Military Justice, 1933, as amended in 1996, Article 209.

Netherlands
Under the Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands, the “wanton destruction of religious, charitable, educational and historic buildings and monuments” constitutes a war crime. 
Netherlands, Definition of War Crimes Decree, 1946, Article 1.

Under the International Crimes Act (1946) of the Netherlands, the following shall be guilty of a crime:
Anyone who commits, in the case of an international armed conflict, one of the grave breaches of the Additional Protocol (I), … namely:

(d) the following acts if committed intentionally and in violation of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol (I):

(iv) making clearly recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement, for example within the framework of a competent international organization, the object of attack, causing as a result extensive destruction thereof, where there is no evidence of the violation by the adverse Party of Article 53, subparagraph (b), of Additional Protocol (I) and when such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives …
Anyone who, in the case of an international armed conflict, intentionally and unlawfully commits one of the following acts …:
(a) making the object of attack cultural property that is under enhanced protection as referred to in articles 10 and 11 of the [1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property]; …
(d) making cultural property that is under protection as referred to in (c) [under the protection of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property or of the 1999 Second Protocol thereto] the object of attack …

Anyone who, in the case of an international armed conflict, commits one of the following acts:

(p) intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, … provided they are not military objectives …

Anyone who, in the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, commits one of the following acts: …
(d) intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, … provided they are not military objectives. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Articles 5(2)(d)(iv), 5(4)(a) and (d), 5(5)(p) and 6(3)(d).

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Geneva Conventions Act (1958), as amended in 1987, provides:
Any person who in New Zealand or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence. 
New Zealand, Geneva Conventions Act, 1958, as amended in 1987, Section 3(1).

Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(ix) and (e)(iv) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).

Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes a soldier who
destroys or damages, without military necessity, the documentary and bibliographic heritage, architectural monuments and places of historical or environmental importance, movable property of historical, artistic, scientific or technical value, archaeological sites, property of ethnographical value and natural sites, gardens and parks of historical-artistic or anthropological value and, in general, all those which are part of the historical heritage. 
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Article 61.

Niger
Niger’s Penal Code (1961), as amended in 2003, contains a list of war crimes committed against persons and objects protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977, including:
attacks against historical monuments, works of art or places of worship clearly recognized [as such] which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples being accorded a special protection by a particular arrangement if there exists no evidence that the adversary has violated the prohibition to use such property as a support of his military efforts and if these objects are not situated in the immediate vicinity of military objects. 
Niger, Penal Code, 1961, as amended in 2003, Article 208.3(20).

Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).

Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states: “Any person is liable to punishment for a war crime who in connection with an armed conflict … directs an attack against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, [or] cultural monuments”. 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 106(f).

Paraguay
Paraguay’s Military Penal Code (1980) provides for the punishment of anyone “who destroys or damages public monuments [and/or] objects of science and works of art held in public or private collections”. 
Paraguay, Military Penal Code, 1980, Article 284.

Peru
Peru’s Code of Military Justice (1980) provides for the punishment of soldiers who, in time of armed conflict, “without any necessity, attack … places of worship or convents … which are recognizable by the proper emblems” or who “destroy, on allied or enemy territory, libraries, archives … or works of art without being compelled to do so by the necessities of war”.  
Peru, Code of Military Justice, 1980, Article 95(2) and (3).

Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:
A member of the military or police shall be imprisoned for a period of no less than eight and no more than 15 years if he or she in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict:

2. Directs an attack by any means against civilian objects if they are protected by international humanitarian law, in particular buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, [and] historic monuments. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 95(2).

This article is no longer in force. Along with certain other articles in this legislation, it was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (en banc decision for case file No. 0012-2006-PI-TC, 8 January 2007) because it does not stipulate a crime committed in the line of duty that would fall under the jurisdiction of a military court pursuant to Article 173 of Peru’s Constitution.
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010) states:
A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less than five and not more than twelve years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, … he or she destroys buildings, temples, archives, monuments or other public property without a justified reason. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 81.

In a chapter titled “Crimes involving the use of prohibited methods in the conduct of hostilities”, the Criminal Code also states:
A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less than six years and not more than twenty-five years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, he or she:

2. Attacks by any means civilian objects, provided that they are protected as such under International Humanitarian Law, in particular objects dedicated to religion, education, arts, science or charitable purposes [or] historic monuments. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 91(2).

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.

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 historic 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.

Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the war crime of “[d]irecting attacks against civilian objects, namely buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes [and] historic monuments” in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 13(1)(2).

Romania
Romania’s Penal Code (1968) provides for the punishment of:
destruction of any kind, without military necessity, of monuments or constructions that have artistic, historic or archaeological value, of museums, important libraries, archives of historic or scientific value, works of art, manuscripts, valuable books, scientific collections or important book collections, archives, reproductions of the above items and in general of any cultural heritage of peoples. 
Romania, Penal Code, 1968, Article 360.

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Criminal Code (1996) provides for the punishment of “destruction of or damage to cultural and historical monuments … as well as objects or documents having historical or cultural value”. 
Russian Federation, Criminal Code, 1996, Article 243(1).

The Code provides a heavier penalty for “the same acts committed against particularly valuable objects or monuments of all-Russian significance”. 
Russian Federation, Criminal Code, 1996, Article 243(2).

Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states that the following constitute war crimes:
b) [O]ther serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

8. launching deliberate attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes [or] historic monuments … , as long as these buildings are not military objectives;

d) …
Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

4. launching deliberate attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes [or] historic monuments … , as long as these buildings are not military objectives. 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-3(b)(8) and (d)(4).

The Penal Code also 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).

Slovakia
Slovakia’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended, provides for the punishment of “a commander who, contrary to the provisions of international law on means and methods of warfare, intentionally: … (d) destroys or damages … an internationally recognized cultural monument”. 
Slovakia, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended, Article 262(2)(d).

Slovenia
According to Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), it is a war crime to destroy “cultural or historical monuments and buildings, institutions dedicated to scientific, cultural, education or humanitarian purposes”. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 384(1).

The Code provides for a heavier penalty in case of destruction of “an entity specially protected by international law as a site of national, cultural, spiritual or natural heritage”. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 384(2).

South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in both international and non-international armed conflicts: “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, [or] historic monuments… provided they are not military objectives”. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, §§ (b)(ix) and (e)(iv).

Spain
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) punishes a soldier who:
destroys or damages, without military necessity, the documentary and bibliographic heritage, architectural monuments and places of historical or environmental importance, movable property of historical, artistic, scientific or technical value, archaeological sites, property of ethnographical value and natural sites, gardens and parks of historical-artistic or anthropological value and, in general, all those which are part of the historical heritage. 
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 77(7).

Spain’s Penal Code (1995) provides for the punishment of:
anyone who, in the event of armed conflict, should … attack or subject to … hostile acts the cultural property or religious sites which are recognized as clearly being part of the cultural or spiritual heritage of the people or which have been specifically protected by special agreements, causing extensive destruction, whenever this property is not located in the immediate vicinity of military objectives and is not used to support the military effort of the adversary …
Should the cultural assets in question be under special protection or the acts be of the utmost gravity, the higher penalty may be imposed. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 613(1)(a) and (2).

Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states:
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:
a) Attacking … cultural property or places of worship which are clearly identified and constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and which are protected by special agreements or cultural property under enhanced protection, causing extensive damage, as long as such property is not situated in the immediate proximity of military objectives and is not used in support of the enemy’s military effort. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 613(1)(a).

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:
a. Attacking … cultural property or places of worship which are clearly identified and constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, as long as such property is not situated in the immediate proximity of military objectives and is not used in support of the enemy’s military effort;

2. When the attack … is against 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)(a) and (2).

Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states:
[Members of the armed forces] must not attack or make the object of … acts of hostility … cultural property or places dedicated to religion, which are clearly identified and constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to which an enhanced protection has been granted by special agreements. 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 113.

Sudan
Sudan’s Armed Forces Act (2007) provides:
Subject to the provisions of the Criminal Act of 1991, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whoever directs attacks against buildings allocated for religious, educational, technical, scientific, charitable or cultural purposes, or … cemeteries, antiquities and cultural objects as such, unless used for military purposes. 
Sudan, Armed Forces Act, 2007, Article 156.

Sweden
Under Sweden’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 1998, “arbitrarily destroying and extensively damaging property which enjoys special protection under international law” constitutes a crime against international law. 
Sweden, Penal Code, 1962, as amended in 1998, Chapter 22, § 6(7).

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended, punishes anyone who “unlawfully destroys or damages cultural property or material placed under the protection of the distinctive sign of cultural property”. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended, Article 111.

Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended in 2007, states:
Any person who has undertaken hostile acts against places under the protection of … the emblem of cultural property, or has prevented them from exercising their functions,

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’s Law on the Protection of Cultural Property (1966) states that protection includes respect for cultural property, which means, inter alia, “to renounce acts which could expose these objects to destruction or deterioration”. 
Switzerland, Law on the Protection of Cultural Property, 1966, Article 2(3).

Switzerland’s Law on the Protection of Cultural Property (1966), as amended in 2008, states:
1. The immunity of cultural property placed under special protection … may only be lifted in exceptional cases of inevitable military necessity, and only for as long as this necessity persists. The existence of such military necessity may only be determined by the commander of a military formation that corresponds to or supersedes a division.
2. The immunity of cultural property which is not placed under special protection … may only be lifted in exceptional cases if imperatively required by military necessity, and only for as long as this necessity persists. The existence of such military necessity may only be determined by a local competent commander. 
Switzerland, Law on the Protection of Cultural Property, 1966, as amended in 2008, Article 21.

Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998), in the section on “Serious violations of international humanitarian law”, provides for the punishment of:
wilful breaches of norms of international humanitarian law committed in an international or non-international armed conflict, i.e. … the destruction of or damage to historical monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples. 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 403(1).

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1995, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
United Kingdom, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 1995, Section 1(1).

Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(ix) and (e)(iv) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).

United States of America
Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), violations of Article 27 of the 1907 Hague Regulations are war crimes. 
United States, War Crimes Act, 1996, Section 2441(c)(2).

The US Military Commissions Act (2006), passed by Congress following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006, amends Title 10 of the United States Code as follows:
§ 950v. Crimes triable by military commissions
(a) DEFINITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION.—In this section:

(3) PROTECTED PROPERTY.—The term “protected property” means property specifically protected by the law of war (such as buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, or places where the sick and wounded are collected), if such property is not being used for military purposes or is not otherwise a military objective. Such term includes objects properly identified by one of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, but does not include civilian property that is a military objective.

(b) OFFENSES.—The following offenses shall be triable by military commission under this chapter at any time without limitation:

(4) ATTACKING PROTECTED PROPERTY.—Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally engages in an attack upon protected property shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct. 
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2006, Public Law 109-366, Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code, 17 October 2006, p. 120 Stat. 2626, §§ 950v(a)(3) and (b)(4).

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:
(1) It is the understanding of the United States of America that “special protection,” as defined in Chapter II of the Convention, codifies customary international law in that it … allows all property to be attacked using any lawful and proportionate means, if required by military necessity and notwithstanding possible collateral damage to such property.
(2) It is the understanding of the United States of America that any decision by any military commander, military personnel, or any other person responsible for planning, authorizing, or executing military action or other activities covered by this Convention shall only be judged on the basis of that person’s assessment of the information reasonably available to the person at the time the person planned, authorized, or executed the action under review, and shall not be judged on the basis of information that comes to light after the action under review was taken.
(3) It is the understanding of the United States of America that the rules established by the Convention apply only to conventional weapons, and are without prejudice to the rules of international law governing other types of weapons, including nuclear weapons.

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.

The US Military Commissions Act (2009) amends Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code as follows:
§ 950p. Definitions; construction of certain offenses; common circumstances
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this subchapter:

(3) The term “protected property” means any property specifically protected by the law of war, including buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments … but only if and to the extent such property is not being used for military purposes or is not otherwise a military objective. The term includes objects properly identified by one of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, but does not include civilian property that is a military objective. 
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2009, § 950p(a)(3).

The Act also states:
§ 950t. Crimes triable by military commission
The following offenses shall be triable by military commission under this chapter at any time without limitation:

(4) ATTACKING PROTECTED PROPERTY.—Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally engages in an attack upon protected property shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct. 
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2009, § 950t(4).

Uruguay
Uruguay’s Military Penal Code (1943), as amended, punishes military personnel, equiparados and even persons unconnected with the armed forces “for unjustified attacks on … places of worship, convents, museums, libraries, archives, monuments and in general any establishment or structure intended for the purposes of culture, art, religious worship or charity”. 
Uruguay, Military Penal Code, 1943, as amended, Article 58(12).

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:

17. Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, [or] historic monuments … , provided they are not military objectives.

39. Intentionally directing attacks against a) cultural objects protected by international law … ; b) cultural heritage of great importance to humanity, including cultural heritage linked to a site of natural heritage, irrespective of whether it is included in the lists maintained by UNESCO or any other international organization. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Articles 26.2, 26.3.17 and 26.3.39.

Venezuela
Venezuela’s Code of Military Justice (1998), as amended, provides for the punishment of “those who, in the absence of military necessity, should destroy, in enemy or allied territory, places of worship, libraries or museums, archives, aqueducts and other works of art, as well as communication, telecommunication or other such installations”. 
Venezuela, Code of Military Justice, 1998 as amended, Article 474(16).

Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Law on Cultural Heritage (2001) states that “[a]ll cultural heritages on the Vietnamese territory, which have [either] domestic or foreign origin … shall be protected”. 
Viet Nam, Law on Cultural Heritage, 2001, § 8.1.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, punishes anyone who “in violation of international law applicable to war or armed conflict, destroys cultural or historic monuments and buildings, or scientific, art, educational or humanitarian institutions” and provides a heavier penalty “if a clearly discernible object from paragraph 1 of this article is destroyed and it represents the cultural and spiritual heritage of that people under special protection of international law”. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 151.

Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1996, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Zimbabwe, commits any such grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Zimbabwe, Geneva Conventions Act, 1981, as amended in 1996, Section 3(1).

Back to top
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
International humanitarian law, in its treaty and customary form applicable in internal armed conflicts, provides for the special protection of certain categories of persons and property particularly vulnerable to the effects of war. The main categories of persons specially protected [include] … cultural property. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 120.

The Court also held:
International humanitarian law binds parties to an internal armed conflict to respect and protect cultural property, understood to mean both (i) cultural property in general – “buildings dedicated to religious and charitable purposes, education, arts or science, and against historic monuments, works of art or science” – and (ii) cultural property of special importance for the heritage of peoples – “historic monuments, works of art or places of worhip which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples”. These two types of property are protected by specific treaty provisions – the former by the 1954 Hague Convention, the latter by the [1977] Additional Protocol II – and such protection is also considered to be a part of customary international humanitarian law. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 120.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Court further held:
Although cultural property falls within the general category of “civilian property” and as such is protected by the principles of distinction and precaution, … international humanitarian law imposes a duty on all parties to an armed conflict to provide cultural property with special care, respect, prevention and protection. In this sense, guarantees aimed at protecting cultural property – including resort to penal sanctions – constitute lex specialis in relation to the principles of distinction and precaution. A violation of these special protection guarantees for cultural property is a war crime under international humanitarian treaty and customary law. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 121.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Court added that “[w]ithin the category of cultural property, religious institutions are subject to special protection under international humantiarian treaty and customary law applicable in internal armed conflict”. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 121.

The Court further stated:
The protection of cultural and religious property is not dependent on the property being identified with a distinctive emblem. Although the 1954 Hague Convention provides in its Articles 6 and 16 that specially relevant cultural property may bear the distinctive emblem provided, this is by no means an obligation and the use of the emblem is not a condition for the full application of treaty and customary safeguards granted by international humanitarian law. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 122.
[emphasis in original]
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In August 2006, in the Kahwa Panga Mandro case, the Military Garrison Court of Ituri at Bunia held:
3. On the crime against humanity of murder and the war crime of attack against protected objects …

c.) On the war crime by attack against protected objects according to Articles 8.2)b)ix) and 77 of the Rome Statute
Whereas for its realisation, that charge requires the following elements:
1) That the perpetrator directed an attack;
Whereas in the present case it has been proven through the testimony of the victims that the troops of the chief Kahwa attacked Zumbe on his order, while he was the chief of the Hema militia called “Chui mobil force” …;

2) That the object of the attack was one or more buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals or places where the sick and wounded are collected, which were not military objectives.
Whereas in the present case it follows from witness evidence that the attack from 15 to 16 October 2002 concerned the buildings of the Zumbe health centre, the CECA 20 church of Zumbe, the primary school of Zumbe and the school Buisa Bunyi;
3) That the perpetrator intended such buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals or places where the sick and wounded are collected, which were not military objectives, to be the object of the attack;
Whereas in the present case, when attacking all these objects, Kahwa’s men knew that these objects were not military objects; whereas from this follows the mental element; whereas, in fact, there was no military target for pretending that they attacked that building because it was occupied by armed men;
4) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict not of an international character [sic; see Elements of Crimes, Article 8(2)(e)(iv) ICC Statute],
In the present case, the Hema militias and the Lendu fought against each other, and that since 2000, on the basis of land conflicts;
Whereas, in fact, the examination of the victims, in particular the chief of the locality and community of Zumbe, has shown that there were several attacks committed by the Hema against the Lendu of Bedu-Ezekele. …
5) That the perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
Whereas, in fact, the defendant Kahwa was aware of the existence of these conflicts …
Whereas it has been proven that Kahwa in his [passive] attitude had to tolerate the violations committed by his men during the attack of 15 to 16 October 2002; whereas his troops, in fact, operated in the territory controlled by him in his capacity as chief of the community, acts he cannot pretend not to have been aware of;
Whereas, in consequence, his responsibility on the basis of Articles 85 to 87 of the Geneva Additional Protocol [I] and Article 28 of the Rome Statute on the responsibility of superiors, which provides as follows, [is established]:
“Their (command) responsibility is only engaged if they failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.”
Whereas Articles 85–87 of Additional Protocol I provide that:
“any commander who is aware that subordinates are going to commit or have committed a violation must:
- initiate such steps as are necessary to prevent such violations,
- initiate disciplinary or penal action against violators, [according to] his competences,
- report violations to the competent authorities”;
Whereas, in fact, the commander shares the responsibility with the perpetrator of the act;
Whereas Article 29 of the International Criminal Court speaks of the responsibility of the superior (military commander or civilian superior) in the following cases:
- If “the military commander either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes”;
- If “the superior either knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes and these crimes concerned activities that were within the effective responsibility and control of the superior”;
Whereas, in the present case, Kahwa, in his capacity as chief of the Hema militia and leader of the Bahema Banyuagi community, while attacking the Lendu did nothing to hinder these dramas; whereas his silence thus constitutes approval or a tacit order;
Therefore

The Military Garrison Tribunal of Ituri, holding publicly and after proceedings in which both sides were heard, by the majority of the votes of its members, by secret vote:

- Holds as established in fact and in law the offence of war crime by attack directed against protected objects the defendant Kahwa Panga Mandro is charged with and for this convicts him to 20 years of penal servitude. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Garrison Court of Ituri, Kahwa Panga Mandro case, Judgment, 2 August 2006.

Germany
In 2008, in the Kurdish Refugee case, Germany’s Higher Administrative Court for the Federal Land of Bavaria found that a Kurdish refugee claimant from Turkey was to be excluded from refugee protection inter alia because there were serious reasons for considering that he had committed war crimes during his involvement with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. The court held: “Deliberate attacks against buildings dedicated to education are … war crimes (on the law in international armed conflict, see Art. 8 para. 2 sub-para. b no. ix of the [1998] Rome Statute, [on the law] in civil war see Art. 8 para. 2 sub-para. 2 no. iv of the Rome Statute).” 
Germany, Higher Administrative Court for the Federal Land of Bavaria, Kurdish Refugee case, Judgment, 21 October 2008, § 48.

Iraq
In its judgment in the Al-Anfal case in 2007, the Iraqi High Tribunal listed the following elements for the crime of intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religious, educational, artistic, scientific or charitable purposes, or against historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected:
1. The perpetrator must induct a raid.
2. The raid must target one building or more, of those designated for religious, educational, artistic, scientific, and charitable purposes, or against historical sites, or wounded and patients’ gathering centres which are not considered military targets.
3. The perpetrator must premeditatedly make the raid’s target one or more buildings designated for religious, educational, artistic, scientific, and charitable purposes, or against historical sites, or wounded and patients’ gathering centres which are not considered military targets.
4. The conduct must be issued within the context of national armed dispute correlated with it.
5. The perpetrator must be aware of factual conditions which prove the existence of armed conflict. 
Iraq, Iraqi High Tribunal, Al-Anfal case, Judgment, 24 June 2007, p. 588; see also pp. 680 and 785, based on a translation available at http://law.case.edu/grotian-moment-blog/anfal/opinion.asp (last accessed on 1 April 2010).

The Tribunal further stated:
The elements of proof of a crime as that of war are: evidences that the rebellious side have an organized armed force as well as a responsible authority perpetrating acts in a specific geographic sector and respects Geneva Conventions, the perpetrated act occurred in a time and geographic frames under armed dispute, damages in civil properties, destruction, religious aspect, evidence that those samples were not used by armed forces for the absence of military establishments seen in naked eyes. Evidence that perpetrated actions designate intent to engender damages or destroying those protected samples.

And the elements of the evidence for the war crime represented in the attack of protected properties … is proof of the damage caused to the civilian properties … and proof of the non existence of military establishments in or on the properties … and the non presence of military establishments near the properties … and proof of activities which were committed and indicated to the intention of making these damages or the destruction of guarded properties.

But if it was possible to recognize the properties obviously as religious or educational establishments which were not used for military purposes, during military operations occurrence, hence their destruction or confiscation by hostile armed forces is considered as premeditated conditioned that the aforementioned establishments are not located at the vicinity of military targets. 
Iraq, Iraqi High Tribunal, Al-Anfal case, Judgment, 24 June 2007, pp. 588, 680 and 885, based on a translation available at http://law.case.edu/grotian-moment-blog/anfal/opinion.asp (last accessed on 1 April 2010).

Back to top
Algeria
The Report on the Practice of Algeria asserts the “principle of inviolability of places of worship”. 
Report on the Practice of Algeria, 1998, Chapter 4.3.

Argentina
In 1998, at the Vienna expert meeting on the revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, Argentina stressed “the desirability of including the notion of military necessity” in the 1997 Revised Lauswolt Document, “provided, however, that this notion be defined precisely to avoid abuses”. 
Argentina, Comments submitted to the Expert Meeting on the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention, Vienna, 11–13 May 1998.

Armenia
In 1997, in its initial report to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Armenia stated:
6. It should be noted that military action took place for the most part within the territory of Karabakh and adjacent districts, where a large number of monuments of Armenian architecture are located. … Regrettably it must be reported that during the conflict most of the Armenian historical monuments were damaged or entirely destroyed. …
7. At the same time the Karabakh side to the conflict, guided by humanitarian considerations, was able to protect and preserve monuments of Azeri culture (mosques at Shaumyan and Agdam and the mausoleum of Vasif). 
Armenia, Initial report to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 5 December 1998, UN Doc. E/1990/5/Add.36, submitted 14 July 1997, §§ 6–7.

Australia
At the CDDH, Australia stated that had Article 47 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 53) been put to a vote, it would have abstained “because the article contains a prohibition against reprisals” even though it supported “proposals for rules to prohibit acts of hostility directed against historic monuments or works of art which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples”. 
Australia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, pp. 219–220.

A report submitted by the Australian government to the UNESCO Secretariat in 1994 emphasized: “All ADF [Australian Defence Force] personnel, prior to departure for services overseas, are briefed ‘on the necessity to respect [differences in culture] which would include respect for the cultural heritage of other peoples’.” 
Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Report to UNESCO on Measures to Implement the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and Associated Regulations, 13 July 1994, § 2.

Austria
In a statement at a meeting of EU experts in 1998, Austria maintained that “it is this ‘formula’ [military necessity] which last but not least has led to the fact that a large number of reluctant States resolved to vote for the convention and to ratify it”. 
Austria, Statement at the Expert Meeting of the 15 EU Member States on the 1954 Hague Convention, Houthem St. Gerlach, February 1998, p. 2, § 5, ad. 1.

In a fact sheet on military necessity prepared for the 1998 Vienna expert meeting on the revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, Austria stated:
1. … In modern IHL, military necessity does not function as a general waiver to the limitations imposed by IHL on the parties to an armed conflict, but can only be invoked in cases where conventional law explicitly so provides. In order to emphasize the exceptional character of this concept, it is often further qualified by narrowing terms.
2.1 While the arguments against the inclusion of a waiver clause based on military necessity in the text of the 1954 Hague Convention were mainly based on the fear that this would be regarded as a retrograde step in relation to previous international law and would diminish the protection, the arguments for the inclusion of such a waiver were manifold and superseded the former. For the inclusion of a waiver clause based on military necessity spoke the need to make the Convention militarily applicable, the recognition of humanitarian reasons (to allow for the primacy of the protection of human lives over that of objects), the desire to make the Convention acceptable to as many States as possible, and the intent to be in line with existing IHL, in particular with the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The compromise finally negotiated allows for the recognition of military necessity only by way of exception and solely in relation to specific obligations.
2.2 … The 1954 Hague Convention does not define what constitutes imperative military necessity. It is therefore up to each State Party to interpret these terms along the rules of interpretation applicable to international treaties. According to the wording of the waiver clause, and in light of the object and purpose of the Convention as well as the drafting history, it must be interpreted restrictively. It definitely goes beyond mere considerations of military convenience and involves a certain level of command to assess the situation and to decide on the application of the waiver.

The waiver clause currently contained in Art. 4 para. 2 of the Convention serves an important protective function. Without this clause, the protection of cultural property would automatically be lost when a party to the armed conflict uses the object for military purposes … As a consequence of its – unlawful – use the formerly protected cultural property would change its status and become a legitimate military target.
The existing waiver clause, however, ensures the protection of cultural property from damage or destruction even if the cultural property concerned or its surroundings are used for military purposes, since the obligation to respect cultural property, in particular the obligation to refrain from any act of hostility directed against such property, may only be waived in cases where military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver. Thus, according to Art. 4 para. 2 of the Convention, cultural property used in violation of the Convention must not be attacked without imperative military necessity to do so.
As it is formulated now, the waiver clause contained in Art. 4 para. 2 of the Convention reflects a proper balance between the military needs, on the one hand, and the need for the protection of cultural property against damage or destruction during armed conflict, on the other, and should, therefore, be retained. To further improve the protective function of the waiver clause, a common understanding of the States Parties as to the interpretation of its terms seems to be useful.

3.1 In addition to that, one might consider to introduce the following elements into the waiver clause or the protection regime in relation to cultural property under “normal” protection:
- compulsory warnings;
- a minimum time for the other party to redress the situation;
- a certain command level where the decision on the waiver has to be taken;
- certain requirements with regard to an attack on the property concerned in case of imperative military necessity:
- precautions in attack;
- no alternative means reasonably available;
- the limitation of means and methods to those which are strictly necessary to counter the threat posed. 
Austria, Fact Sheet on Military Necessity submitted to the Expert Meeting on the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention, Vienna, 11–13 May 1998, §§ 1–3.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2005, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that its Law on Freedom of Religion and on the Legal Status of Churches and Religious Communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2004) prohibits “attacks on and damage of religious facilities and property of the church and other religious communities”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 24 November 2005, UN Doc. CCPR/C/BIH/1, § 206.

Canada
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.

Cabo Verde
In 1992, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, Cabo Verde condemned “the widespread use of violence in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, including the destruction of “cultural and historical landmarks”. 
Cabo Verde, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3082, 30 May 1992, § 6.

Chile
The Report on the Practice of Chile states that it is Chile’s opinio juris that “the general principle of protecting cultural and religious objects is an integral part of customary international law”. 
Report on the Practice of Chile, 1997, Chapter 4.3.

China
At the 18th International Conference of the Red Cross in Toronto in 1952, China levelled the accusation at the United States that “in Korea, … cultural, religious and charitable installations were wilfully destroyed”. 
China, Statement of 30 July 1952 at the 18th International Conference of the Red Cross, Toronto, 26 July–7 August 1952, reprinted in Documents on Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, World Knowledge Press, Beijing, Vol. 2, pp. 82–83.

Colombia
Colombia’s National Plan for the Dissemination of IHL states that the immunity of the spiritual and cultural heritage is absolute, and that the destruction of religious and cultural objects can neither serve any military need whatsoever nor provide any military advantage. 
Colombia, Presidency, Office of the High Commission for Peace, National Plan for the Dissemination of IHL, 1994, p. 7.

Croatia
In 1991, during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Croatia reported and condemned the destruction of and damage to cultural, historical and religious monuments by the Yugoslav army. 
Croatia, Ministry of Information, Report on the War against Croatia, August 1991, pp. 1–2; Ministry of Education and Culture, Report on cultural monuments, historic centres and sites damaged and destroyed during the war in Croatia, Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments, 30 October 1991.

Egypt
In its written comments on other written statements submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Egypt stated: “In bombardments all necessary precautions must be taken to spare buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes [and] historic monuments”. 
Egypt, Written comments on other written statements submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, September 1995, § 50.

Ethiopia
The Report on the Practice of Ethiopia reasserts the commitment of “states and governments of the Horn of Africa not to attack any objects of cultural value”. 
Report on the Practice of Ethiopia, 1998, Chapter 4.3.

Finland
At the CDDH, Finland explained its vote against Article 20 bis of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 16) as follows:
Our negative vote is not to be taken as an indication of a negative stand as regards the safeguarding of cultural property from the ravages of war in general. It is an indication of our strong feeling that the inclusion of a provision protecting cultural property in Protocol II, which lacks general rules on the methods and means of combat … which have been deleted, unbalances the protective humanitarian character of the Protocol. 
Finland, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.53, 6 June 1977, pp. 156–157.

France
In a position paper on the 1997 Revised Lauswolt Document, France expressed the view that “military necessity may be admitted only where an express provision allows recourse to it”. It concluded that the wording of Articles 4(2) and 11(2) of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property should be maintained. 
France, Observations on the Revised Lauswolt Document, UNESCO Doc. DLT.97/CONF.208/2, October 1997, § 1.

This view was repeated in a position paper submitted in 1998 to the Vienna expert meeting on the revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, at which France referred to the principle whereby it was not permitted to use more violence than absolutely necessary. 
France, Position paper submitted to the Expert Meeting on the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention, Vienna, 11–13 May 1998, § 2.

In 1998, in a working document submitted to the Vienna expert meeting on the revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, France stated:
1. The Convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, signed at The Hague on 14 May 1954, mentions the concept of military necessity in respect of all cultural property . …
2. Although such provisions gave rise to much debate during the preparation of the text of the Convention, they are not new. The idea of military necessity is a classic part of the law of armed conflict. [reference to Article 23(g) 1907 Hague Regulations and Article 53 Geneva Convention IV]
3. If the idea of military necessity is expressly recognized in the law of war as well as in humanitarian law, it is not because it represents an attack on the general principle of limitation which should govern the behaviour of States during armed conflicts, but rather because it is an additional safety measure for the implementation of this principle of limitation. The recourse to military necessity is never arbitrary: military necessity only makes sense in conformity with the customary principles of international humanitarian law and of the law of war, in the context of the application in good faith of the international obligations which bind states.
4. It is therefore wrong to think that military necessity represents a threat to cultural property: its implementation is closely constrained by four cumulative conditions:
– military necessity is controlled, since the rule of law should include such an exception;
– as for all exceptions, the application of military necessity should be limited in time;
– military necessity can only justify means which are indispensable to achieve the aim;
– the means of implementing military necessity must be legal.
5. It can be seen that these four conditions must be respected in all cases of the implementation of military necessity, either for property under general protection or for property under special protection. These conditions are linked to the customary principles of humanitarian law and of the law of war, and not to various levels of protection by which the property is covered. 
France, Working document on military necessity submitted to the Expert Meeting on the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention, Vienna, 11–13 May 1998, §§ 1–5.

During the intergovernmental meeting on the revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in The Hague in 1999, the French delegation stressed that the protection from attack enjoyed by cultural property can be lifted only in case of military necessity. 
France, Statement at the Diplomatic Conference on the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention, The Hague, 15–26 March 1999.

The Report on the Practice of France states: “The French authorities condemn all acts that are likely to seriously damage cultural and religious property, whether in the context of international or non-international armed conflicts.” 
Report on the Practice of France, 1998, Chapter 4.3.

Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, France declared: “If property protected under Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I is used for military purposes, it loses the protection which it could enjoy according to the provisions of the Protocol.” 
France, Reservations and declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 11 April 2001, § 13.

Germany, Federal Republic of
At the CDDH, the Federal Republic of Germany stated:
Article 47 bis [of draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 53)] establishes a special protection for a limited class of objects which, in the particular circumstances, constitute a part of the cultural or spiritual heritage of mankind. Such objects remain protected whether or not they have been restored. The illegal use of these objects for military purposes, however, will cause them to lose the protection provided for in Article 47 bis as a result of attacks which are to be directed against such military uses. In such a case the protected object becomes a military objective … Article 47 bis 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 … Article 47 bis is limited to [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] and does not affect any obligations under the [1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property]. 
Germany, Federal Republic of, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, pp. 225 and 226.

Germany
In a debate in the German parliament in 1991 on the situation in the city of Dubrovnik, a member of parliament labelled attacks on Dubrovnik as “acts of barbarism”. This view was shared by a large majority of members of parliament. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by a Member of Parliament, Dr. Christopher Zöpel, 17 October 1991, Plenarprotokoll 12/50, p. 4092.

In 1996, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, Germany called upon the parties to the conflict in Afghanistan “to preserve the cultural heritage of their country”. 
Germany, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/51/PV.84, 13 December 1996, p. 7.

In 1997, in its position paper concerning a revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property (Revised Lauswolt Document), Germany stated that “the definition of cultural property in Article 1 of the Convention should form the basis of the new legal instrument” because the non-exhaustive list contained in Article 1 had been “accepted by the international community” and the incorporation of definitions from other instruments was “inadvisable”. Germany further stated:
The principle of military necessity as a core element of international humanitarian law cannot be dispensed with … The idea that, in certain cases and under certain circumstances, military necessity would take priority over the humanitarian protection of civilian objects … today is an integral part of Customary International Law … Military necessity does not take precedence over the law, but is subject to it. Including the concept of military necessity in the formulation of legal regulations takes account of the fact that international humanitarian law is very often necessarily a compromise between military and humanitarian requirements. 
Germany, Position paper concerning a revision of the 1954 Hague Convention, 1997, pp. 2–3.

Hungary
In 1998, at the Vienna expert meeting on the revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, Hungary expressed its disapproval of the possible inclusion of the notion of “military necessity” in the Revised Lauswolt Document.  
Hungary, Comments submitted to the Expert Meeting on the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention, Vienna, 11–13 May 1998.

India
At the CDDH, India explained its voted against Article 20 bis of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 16) as follows: “The Indian delegation objects strongly to the reference to any international convention, to which only sovereign States can be Parties, in Protocol II, which will apply to internal armed conflicts.” 
India, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.53, 6 June 1977, p. 159.

The Report on the Practice of India states that in India “there are no specific regulations aimed at protecting cultural objects. Nevertheless, the general protection available under the law for protection of public property of all types, can be extended to cultural objects as well.” 
Report on the Practice of India, 1997, Chapter 2.7.

The report points out that the protection ordinarily granted to religious objects is not afforded if such objects are used for terrorist activities. India used armed force in the past against such objects that could not be treated as civilian objects, for example during the military offensive against the Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984. 
Report on the Practice of India, 1997, Chapter 1.3.

Indonesia
At the CDDH, Indonesia voted against Article 20 bis of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 16) but explained that this “should not be interpreted as meaning that [the Indonesian] Government is against the principles contained in this article that historic monuments or works of art should be protected”. 
Indonesia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.53, 6 June 1977, p. 159.

Iraq
The Report on the Practice of Iraq states that there exists an outright prohibition on attacks on cultural property “for any reason”. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 4.3.

Ireland
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Ireland stated:
It is the understanding of Ireland in relation to the protection of cultural objects in Article 53 that if the objects protected by this Article are unlawfully used for military purposes they will thereby lose protection from attacks directed against such unlawful military use. 
Ireland, Declarations and reservations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 19 May 1999, § 10.

Islamic Republic of Iran
According to the Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran accused Iraq of bombarding cultural and historical property on many occasions during the Iran–Iraq War, including museums, ancient hills and places, mosques and schools, while the Islamic Republic of Iran committed itself vis-à-vis UNESCO not to attack such property and accorded “special protection” to four holy cities in Iraq. The report concludes that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s opinio juris is that cultural property is immune from attack. 
Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1997, Chapter 4.3.

The report further states that an attack on a historic building can be considered a war crime. 
Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1997, Chapter 6.5.

In 1992, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the Islamic Republic of Iran qualified the destruction of cultural property in times of armed conflict as a violation of human rights and deplored “gross violations of the human rights of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including … wanton destruction of historical monuments, houses of worship and property”. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3136, 16 November 1992, § 68.

Israel
Israel’s IDF General Staff Order 33.0133 of 1982 requires all soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) “to act, with regard to ‘Cultural Property’ situated within the State of Israel or any other country, in accordance with the provisions of the [1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property]”. It provides, in particular, that IDF soldiers shall abstain from attacking or causing damage to historic monuments, works of art or places of worship. 
Israel, IDF General Staff Order 33.0133, Discipline-Conduct in Accordance with International Conventions to which Israel is a Party, 20 July 1982, § 9.

However, according to the Report on the Practice of Israel, the prohibition not to target cultural property as contained in the Order does not apply to cases in which cultural property is used for “hostile purposes”. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 4.3.

In 1998, at the Vienna expert meeting on the revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, Israel advocated the inclusion of an additional paragraph in the draft Article 1 of the Revised Lauswolt Document, which would provide:
The provisions of this instrument shall not prejudice or derogate from accepted customary principles of the laws of war, including, inter alia, the principles of proportionality, distinction and military necessity. 
Israel, Comments submitted to the Expert Meeting on the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention, Vienna, 11–13 May 1998.

In 2009, in a report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
Religious institutions were similarly protected from attack [i.e. “should be provided absolute protection from attack, unless they were being used by the enemy for military activities”] … Cultural property was protected from attack unless used for military activities or in the case of imperative military necessity. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 224.

The report further stated: “The IDF’s [Israel Defense Forces’] operational plans and rules of engagement order special precautions with regard to military activity in proximity to … religious sites”. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 259.

The report also stated: “In accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict, IDF rules of engagement expressly forbid attacks directed against sacred places, unless they are used for military purposes.” 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 401.

Italy
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Italy stated: “If and so long as the objectives protected by Article 53 are unlawfully used for military purposes, they will thereby lose protection.” 
Italy, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 27 February 1986, § 9.

Japan
The Report on the Practice of Japan notes that Japan is not a party to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property because of some problems connected to domestic measures for the implementation of this Convention. It recalls, however, that Japan was among the countries at the CDDH which proposed adding a clause to the draft Additional Protocol II concerning the protection of cultural property and chapels. 
Report on the Practice of Japan, 1998, Chapter 4.3.

Jordan
The Report on the Practice of Jordan notes that Islamic law lays down the principle of the inviolability of places of worship and states that Jordan has always respected this principle and has always protested against any violations of this principle by its adversaries. 
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 4.3.

Lebanon
In 1981, in a memorandum submitted to the UN Secretary-General, the Lebanese Department of Foreign Affairs accepted the “application of international decisions concerning the conservation of the historical character of the city of Tyre and especially of the archaeological sites”. 
Lebanon, Department of Foreign Affairs, Memorandum, annexed to Letter dated 13 July 1981 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/14586, 14 July 1981.

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
In 1993, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya requested that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina “be supported and assisted in the exercise of its right of self-defence against … the destruction of its places of worship”. 
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3247, 29 June 1993, § 101.

Netherlands
At the CDDH, the Netherlands stated:
Article 47 bis [of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 53)] provided special protection for a limited category of objects which by virtue of their generally recognized importance constituted part of the cultural or spiritual heritage of mankind … The illegitimate use of those historical objects for military purposes would deprive them of the protection afforded by Article 47 bis. 
Netherlands, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, pp. 207–208.

At the CDDH, the Netherlands explained its abstention on the vote on Article 20 bis of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 16) as follows:
Article 20 bis unconditionally prohibits, in an internal conflict, any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments or works of art, which constitute the cultural heritage of peoples. The article does not provide for any possible derogation from the prohibition it contains … We note that the very well-balanced system of the [1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property], through its Article 19 that provides the rule to be applied in internal conflicts, contains a possibility of derogation where imperative reasons of military necessity so require. [The Netherlands] would have preferred a possibility of derogation to be explicitly contained in Article 20 bis. It is our understanding, however, that a derogation for imperative reasons of military necessity is indeed implied in Article 20 bis by virtue of the clear reference to the [1954] Hague Convention. It goes without saying that cessation of immunity from attack during such time as the cultural object is used by adversary armed forces is an example of such military necessity. 
Netherlands, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.53, 6 June 1977, pp. 161–162; see also Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, pp. 126–127, §§ 11–13.

In an explanatory memorandum submitted to the Dutch parliament in the context of the ratification procedure of the 1977 Additional Protocols, the government of the Netherlands stated that cultural objects and places of worship “enjoy the general protection of civilian objects, as specified in Article 52 of Protocol I”. 
Netherlands, Lower House of Parliament, Explanatory memorandum to the ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocols, 1983–1984 Session, Doc. 18 277 (R 1247), No. 3, p. 28.

Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the Netherlands stated, with respect to Article 53 of the Protocol:
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that if and for as long as the objects and places protected by this Article, in violation of paragraph (b), are used in support of the military effort, they will thereby lose such protection. 
Netherlands, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 26 June 1987, § 8.

In 1998, at the Vienna expert meeting on the revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, the Netherlands stated: “As was the case in 1954, the Netherlands believes military necessity is a vital element to be included in a revised Convention.” It stressed:
Although used as an exception to certain rules set forth in humanitarian law instruments, military necessity is not a tool by which military commanders conveniently dismiss the laws of armed conflict when it would be useful or advantageous to do so”
Concerning the notion of “imperative military necessity”, the Netherlands relied upon the definition that “an imperative necessity presupposes that the military objective cannot be reached in any other manner” and that it “requires a careful evaluation of the items which could be affected”. It went on to say:
Although such considerations are inherent in the definition of military necessity, the emphasis placed on the requirement that the necessity must be “imperative” further seeks to limit the likelihood that a military commander will invoke this exception to the protection. 
Netherlands, Comments submitted to the Expert Meeting on the revision of the 1954 Hague Convention, Vienna, 11–13 May 1998.

Norway
At the CDDH, Norway explained that it would vote against Article 20 bis of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 16) because:
Some of the most essential guarantees for the protection of basic human rights had been deleted from draft Protocol II. Their conscience as human beings prevented the members of [the Norwegian] delegation from supporting the adoption of measures according more favourable treatment to cultural objects than to human beings. Their attitude did not relate in any way to the aims of Article 20 bis and [the Norwegian] delegation had accordingly voted for the Article in Committee. 
Norway, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, pp. 125–126, § 4.

Pakistan
In 1994, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Pakistan considered the destruction of mosques and other Islamic structures in the former Yugoslavia as “inhuman behaviour”. 
Pakistan, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3370, 27 April 1994, p. 427.

Russian Federation
According to the Report on the Practice of the Russian Federation, the destruction of cultural property, historic monuments or places of worship that constitute a part of the cultural or spiritual heritage of a people is a prohibited method of warfare. 
Report on the Practice of the Russian Federation, 1997, Chapter 1.6.

Rwanda
According to the Report on the Practice of Rwanda, most cultural and religious objects were not damaged by the belligerents during the non-international armed conflict which took place before 1994. Any damage which did occur was found to have been caused unintentionally. The report maintains, however, that during the “genocide in 1994”, cultural and religious objects were no longer respected. 
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Chapter 4.3.

Ukraine
In 1998, at the Vienna expert meeting on the revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, Ukraine expressed the view that:
The irrelevance of entering the word “military necessity” when drafting the document is accounted for by the following reasons: military doctrine of Ukraine is of a defensive nature: the Constitution of Ukraine doesn’t define it; the internal legislation of Ukraine regarding the protection of national monuments doesn’t define it. 
Ukraine, Position paper submitted to the Expert Meeting on the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention, Vienna, 11–13 May 1998, § C.

United Arab Emirates
In 1992, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the United Arab Emirates stated: “There has been massive arbitrary destruction of historic, religious and archaeological sites regardless of the enormous international efforts made and the role of the United Nations Protection Force.” 
United Arab Emirates, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3137, 16 November 1992, § 88.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
At the CDDH, the UK delegation declared:
We note particularly the use of the expression “spiritual heritage” [in Article 47 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 53)], which qualifies the reference to places of worship and makes it obvious that the protection given by this article extends only to those places of worship which do constitute such spiritual heritage. Many holy places are thus covered, but it is clear to [the UK] delegation that the article is not intended to apply to all places of worship without exception. Secondly, [the UK] delegation does not understand this article as being intended to replace the existing customary law prohibitions reflected in Article 27 of the 1907 [Hague Regulations], which protect a variety of cultural and religious objects. Rather, this article establishes a special protection for a limited class of objects, which, because of their recognized importance, constitute a part of the heritage of mankind. It is the understanding of [the UK] delegation that if these objects are unlawfully used for military purposes, they will thereby lose effective protection as a result of attacks directed against such unlawful military uses”. 
United Kingdom, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 238.

At the CDDH, the United Kingdom explained its vote against Article 20 bis of the draft Additional Protocol II (now Article 16) as follows:
In the case of Article 20 bis, we considered that to retain a provision on the protection of cultural objects and places of worship which did not appear in the simplified draft, when so many provisions for the protection of human victims of armed conflict had been deleted, would be a distortion of what should be the true aims of the Protocol … Our negative vote should not be taken as indicating any lack of sympathy with the aim of the article. It is to be seen as an expression of our conviction that a proper balance should be found in the contents of the Protocol as a whole, a balance which in general seemed to us to have been struck in the simplified draft of Pakistan. 
United Kingdom, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.53, 6 June 1977, p. 163.

Upon signature and upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the United Kingdom stated, in relation to Article 53: “If the objects protected by this Article are unlawfully used for military purposes they will thereby lose protection from attacks directed against such unlawful military uses.” 
United Kingdom, Declarations made upon signature of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 12 December 1977, § g; Reservations and declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 28 January 1998, § k.

In 1991, during a debate in the UN Security Council concerning the Gulf War, the United Kingdom asserted its compliance with the principle of avoiding damage to sites of religious and cultural significance. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.2977, 14 February 1991, § 72.

In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United Kingdom stated: “British commanders have also been briefed on the locations and significance of sites of religious and cultural importance in Iraq, and operations will take account of this.” 
United Kingdom, Letter dated 21 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22215, 21 January 1991.

In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United Kingdom stated:
The entire campaign has been conducted against military infrastructure with the express directions to avoid causing civilian casualties as far as possible, and with specific briefing to avoid sites of cultural and historic significance. 
United Kingdom, Letter dated 28 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22156, 28 January 1991, p. 1.

In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the Government of the United Kingdom stated:
Pilots have clear instructions to minimize civilian casualties and to avoid damage to sites of religious and cultural significance. Indeed, on a number of occasions, attacks have not been pressed home because pilots were not completely satisfied they could meet these conditions. 
United Kingdom, Letter dated 13 February 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22218, 13 February 1991, p. 1.

In 2003, during a debate in the House of Commons, the UK Prime Minister replied to a Member’s question:
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Were cathedrals such as Durham, Lincoln or Wells to be damaged, what would we feel? What precautions are being taken about Kerbala, Najaf, Ur, Hatra and the other great sites? That will be difficult, given that, as at Samarra last time, Saddam may place military objects near the ancient sites.
The Prime Minister: I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises the propensity towards total irresponsibility of Saddam. I assure him that we are fully committed to the protection of cultural property. That is not merely the Government’s position: we are also committed to that under the Geneva conventions. I understand that the Foreign Secretary has talked to him about that, and we will do everything that we can to make sure that sites of cultural or religious significance are properly and fully protected. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statements by the Prime Minister, Hansard, 19 March 2003, Vol. 401, Debates, cols. 939–940.

In 2003, in reply to a written question in the House of Lords, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, wrote:
Paragraph 53 of Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits any attack against a cultural property unless that property is used to support a military effort. In our military planning, very careful attention is applied, in accordance with our responsibilities under international law, to ensure that we minimise the risk of damage from any quarter to civilian populations and infrastructure, including sites of historic, archaeological and cultural heritage.
We are confident that our servicemen and women will respect the rich heritage of the Iraqi people. Any form of indiscipline by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Armed Forces will be taken very seriously and will be dealt with accordingly.
Iraqi military and civilian individuals will be held personally accountable for actions taken by them in the event of military action, including criminal offences. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, Hansard, 26 March 2003, Vol. 646, Written Answers, col. WA81.

In 2003, in reply to a written question in the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for Defence wrote:
We are fully aware of the significance of the holy sites in Najaf and Karbala. The coalition is taking every precaution to respect and avoid damage to them.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is fully committed to the protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict. The Government takes very seriously its obligations to act in conformity with international law, the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. In all our military planning, very careful attention is applied to ensure that we minimise the risk of damage to all civilian sites.
The targeting process during current operations is conducted in accordance with all obligations under international law, including Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions, and the Targeting Directive to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland forces stationed in the Gulf contains explicit guidance on their obligations under international and domestic law. For reasons of force protection, I cannot comment on the specifics of our targeting policy, and I am therefore withholding that information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Defence, security and international relations). 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 8 April 2003, Vol. 403, Written Answers, col. 140W.

In 2005, in reply to a question concerning, inter alia, the protection of cultural property by British forces in Iraq, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict directs that combatants must avoid directing attacks against protected sites, unless there is a military imperative to do so. The UK is in the process of ratifying the convention and its two protocols. This process is still at an early stage and there have been no discussions with the Iraqi authorities relating to the convention. However, UK troops are already acting in accordance with the spirit of the convention.
The UK is a signatory to the 1977 Additional Protocol (AP 1) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which requires that civilian objects are to be protected from attack, unless that object is being used for military purposes; in which case it may lose its special protected status. UK forces in Iraq have strict instructions not to fire on cultural sites such as mosques and heritage sites, as well as important economic and social infrastructure properties, unless these sites are being used for militarily offensive purposes. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 25 October 2005, Vol. 674, Debates, col. WA179.

United States of America
On 26 May 1944, General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, preparing to invade Europe, issued the following order concerning the preservation of historical monuments:
1. Shortly we will be fighting our way across the Continent of Europe in battles designed to preserve our civilization. Inevitably, in the path of our advance will be found historical monuments and cultural centers which symbolize to the world all that we are fighting to preserve.
2. It is the responsibility of every commander to protect and respect these symbols whenever possible.
3. In some circumstances the success of the military operation may be prejudiced in our reluctance to destroy these revered objects. Then, as at Cassino, where the enemy relied on our emotional attachments to shield his defense, the lives of our men are paramount. So, where military necessity dictates, commanders may order the required action even though it involves destruction of some honored site.
4. But there are many circumstances in which damage and destruction are not necessary and cannot be justified. In such cases, through the exercise of restraint and discipline, commanders will preserve centers and objects of historical and cultural significance. Civil Affairs Staffs at higher echelons will advise commanders of the locations of historical monuments of this type, both in advance of the front lines and in occupied areas. This information, together with the necessary instructions, will be passed down through command channels to all echelons. 
United States, Memorandum from General Dwight D. Eisenhower, 26 May 1944, reprinted in US, Annotated Supplement to the Naval Handbook (1997), § 8.5.1.6, footnote 122.

At the CDDH, the United States stated:
It is the understanding of the United States that [Article 47 bis of 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 recognized importance constitute a part of the special heritage of mankind. Other monuments, works of art or places of worship which are not so recognized, none the less represent objects normally dedicated for civilian purposes and are therefore presumptively protected as civilian objects in accordance with the provisions of Article 47 [of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 52)].
We note that the use of these objects in support of the military effort is a violation of this article. Should they be used in support of the military effort it is our clear understanding that these objects will lose the special protection under this article. 
United States, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, pp. 240–241.

In 1987, in submitting the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the US Senate for advice and consent to ratification, the US President, commenting on Article 16, stated:
To avoid confusion, US ratification should be subject to an understanding confirming that the special protection granted by this article is only required for a limited class of objects that, because of their recognized importance, constitute a part of the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and that such objects will lose their protection if they are used in support of the military effort. 
United States, Message from the US President transmitting the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the US Senate for advice and consent to ratification, Treaty Doc. 100-2, 29 January 1987, Comment on Article 16.

In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United States stated: “Despite false reports by Iraqi authorities there is no evidence of damage caused by coalition forces to the four main Shiah holy sites in Iraq.” 
United States, Letter dated 30 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22173, 30 January 1991, p. 1.

In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United States stated that the coalition air sorties were not flown against “religious targets”. 
United States, Letter dated 8 February 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22216, 13 February 1991, p. 1.

In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated:
Whether in territory Coalition forces occupied or in parts of Iraq still under Iraqi control, US and Coalition operations in Iraq were carefully attuned to the fact those operations were being conducted in an area encompassing “the cradle of civilization”, near many archeological sites of great cultural significance. Coalition operations were conducted in a way that balanced maximum possible protection for those cultural sites against protection of Coalition lives and accomplishment of the assigned mission.
While Article 4(1) of the 1954 Hague Convention [for the Protection of Cultural Property] provides specific protection for cultural property, Article 4(2) permits waiver of that protection where military necessity makes such a waiver imperative; such “imperative military necessity” can occur when an enemy uses cultural property and its immediate surroundings to protect legitimate military targets in violation of Article 4(1). Coalition forces continued to respect Iraqi cultural property, even where Iraqi forces used such property to shield military targets from attack. However, some indirect damage may have occurred to some Iraqi cultural property due to the concussive effect of munitions directed against Iraqi targets some distance away from the cultural sites. 
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. 621.

The report further stated: “Cultural and civilian objects are protected from direct, intentional attack unless they are used for military purposes, such as shielding military objects from attack.” 
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. 622.

In 1992, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, the United States noted: “The coalition forces in the Gulf conflict, desiring to spare the historic temples at Ur, had not bombed them even though MiG aircraft had been stationed there.” 
United States, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/47/SR.9, 6 October 1992, p. 11, § 51.

In 1993, in its report to Congress on the protection of natural and cultural resources during times of war, the US Department of Defense stated:
The United States considers the obligations to protect natural, civilian, and cultural property to be customary international law … Cultural property, civilian objects, and natural resources are protected from intentional attack so long as they are not utilized for military purposes. 
United States, Department of Defense, Report to Congress on International Policies and Procedures Regarding the Protection of Natural and Cultural Resources During Times of War, 19 January 1993, p. 202; see also p. 204.

The report further states:
Other steps were taken to minimize collateral damage. Although intelligence collection involves utilization of very scarce resources, these resources were used to look for cultural property in order to properly identify it. Target intelligence officers identified the numerous pieces of cultural property or cultural property sites in Iraq; a “no-strike” target list was prepared, placing known cultural property off limits from attack, as well as some otherwise legitimate targets if attack of the latter might place nearby cultural property at risk of damage. Target folders were annotated regarding near-by cultural property, and large-format maps were utilized with “non-targets” such as cultural property highlighted. In examining large-format photographs of targets, each was reviewed and compared with other known data to locate and identify cultural property.
To the degree possible and consistent with allowable risk to aircraft and aircrews, aircraft and munitions were selected so that attacks on targets in proximity to cultural objects would provide the greatest possible accuracy and the least risk of collateral damage to the cultural property … Aircrews attacking targets in proximity to cultural property were directed not to expend their munitions if they lacked positive identification of their targets. 
United States, Department of Defense, Report to Congress on International Policies and Procedures Regarding the Protection of Natural and Cultural Resources During Times of War, 19 January 1993, p. 205.

In 1999, in submitting the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property and its 1999 Second Protocol to the US Senate for advice and consent to ratification, the US President noted: “United States policy and the conduct of operations are entirely consistent with the Convention’s provisions.” The letter also stated:
In conformity with the customary practice of nations, the protection of cultural property is not absolute. If cultural property is used for military purposes, or in the event of imperative military necessity, the protection afforded by the Convention is waived, in accordance with the Convention’s terms. 
United States, White House, Submission of the Hague Convention on Cultural Property to the Senate, Presidential Message, Congressional Record, 6 January 1999, pp. S35–S36, reprinted in Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 2, 1999, p. 422.

The Report on US Practice states: “It is the opinio juris of the United States that cultural and religious objects should be respected to the extent permitted by military necessity.” 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 4.3.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In Order No. 579 issued in 1991, the Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) stated:
Any attack on cultural and other protected objects (churches, historical monuments, …) is strictly prohibited, except when these objects are used to launch attacks on YPA units. In such cases, the commanding officer in charge shall, before opening fire, warn the opposing side in an appropriate manner to stop fire and vacate the objects in question. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav People’s Army, Political Department, Order No. 579, 14 October 1991, § 3.

In 1992, during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia denounced the destruction of churches, icons and religious books by Croatia. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Memorandum on Genocide in Croatia, 3 February 1992, p. 3.

In 1992, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia qualified the destruction of “historical monuments representing the landmarks of Serbian civilization” in Bosnia and Herzegovina as “flagrant violations of human rights and breaches of humanitarian law”. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3082, 16 November 1992, § 71.

In 1993, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia strongly opposed “the shelling of cities, especially Sarajevo, and the destruction of villages, infrastructure, churches and cultural monuments”. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3203, 20 April 1993, § 28.

Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
The Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia describes the armed conflict in Croatia as being characterized by the mass destruction of cultural, historical and religious objects and by violations of existing norms by both sides. According to the report, the Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) insisted that attacks on cultural and other protected property such as churches and historical monuments were prohibited. Furthermore, the report asserts the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s view that Article 16 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II already enjoys customary law status. It maintains that, for this reason, the parties to the conflict between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Croatia did not deal with the question of cultural property in their agreements on the application of IHL as they deemed it to be superfluous. 
Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1997, Chapter 4.3.

In the Legality of Use of Force cases in 1999, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia initiated proceedings before the ICJ against ten NATO member States (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom and United States) on the ground, inter alia, that:
by taking part in destroying or damaging monasteries, monuments of culture, [the respective States had] acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of [their] obligation not to commit any act of hostility directed against historical monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute cultural or spiritual heritage of people. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Applications instituting proceedings submitted to the ICJ, Legality of Use of Force cases (Yugoslavia v. Belgium; Yugoslavia v. Canada; Yugoslavia v. France; Yugoslavia v. Germany; Yugoslavia v. Italy; Yugoslavia v. Netherlands; Yugoslavia v. Portugal; Yugoslavia v. Spain; Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom; Yugoslavia v. United States of America), 29 April 1999.

Zimbabwe
According to the Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe believes that “an armed conflict should not be allowed to destroy the people’s heritage”. 
Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, 1998, Chapter 4.3.

Back to top
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1979 on Israel-Lebanon, the UN Security Council:
Takes note … of the efforts of the Government of Lebanon to obtain international recognition for the protection of the archaeological and cultural sites and monuments in the city of Tyre in accordance with international law and the Convention of The Hague of 1954, under which such cities, sites and monuments are considered to be a heritage of interest to all mankind. 
UN Security Council, Res. 459, 19 December 1979, § 5, voting record: 12-0-3.

UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1999 on the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, the UN Security Council strongly condemned “attacks on objects protected under international law” and called on all parties “to put an end to such practices”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1265, 17 September 1999, § 2, voting record: 15-0-0.

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 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.

In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the United Nations Decade of International Law, the UN General Assembly stated:
The General Assembly, recognizing the importance of the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, takes note of the efforts under way to facilitate the implementation of existing international instruments in this field. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/157, 16 December 1996, Annex, § 5, adopted without a vote.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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, including “[t]he arming of settlers in the occupied territories to strike at Muslim and Christian religious and holy places”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1984/1 A, 20 February 1984, § 7(d), voting record: 29-1-11

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, including “[t]he arming of settlers in the occupied territories to strike at Muslim and Christian religious and holy places”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1985/1 A, 19 February 1985, § 8(d), voting record: 28-5-8.

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 “[s]triking at Muslim and Christian religious and holy places and repeated attacks on Al Aqsa Mosque aimed at seizing and destroying it”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1986/1 A, 20 February 1986, § 8(d), voting record: 29-7-6.

In a resolution adopted in 1986 on the situation in southern Lebanon, the UN Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned Israel “for its human rights violations such as … desecration of places of worship and other inhuman acts”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1986/43, 12 March 1986, § 1, voting record: 25-1-17.

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 “[s]triking at Muslim and Christian religious and holy places and repeated attacks on Al Aqsa Mosque aimed at seizing and destroying it”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1987/2 A, 19 February 1987, § 8(d), voting record: 28-8-6.

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 “aggression against Islamic and Christian religious holy places, including the repeated attacks on Al Aqsa Mosque with the aim of seizing and destroying it”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1988/1 A, 15 February 1988, § 7, voting record: 31-8-4.

In a resolution adopted in 1989 on the question of violations of human rights in occupied Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights, taking into consideration the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, condemned Israel for “its attacks against holy place, such as mosques and churches, and its attempt to occupy Al Aqsa Mosque and to destroy it”. as well as for obstructing the freedom of worship and religious practices. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1989/2 A, 17 February 1989, § 4(d), voting record: 32-8-2.

In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights denounced “the intentional destruction of mosques, churches and other places of worship”. 
UN Commission of Human Rights, Res. 1994/72, 9 March 1994, § 7(e), adopted without a vote, adopted without a vote.

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 Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on defamation of religions, the UN Human Rights Council:
6. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions as well as targeting of religious symbols;

9. Further urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. 4/9, 30 March 2007, §§ 6 and 9, voting record: 24-14-9.

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 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 [for the Protection of Cultural Property] 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.

In a resolution adopted in 1993, the UNESCO General Conference expressed grave concern at the “destruction of the cultural, historical and religious heritage of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (including mosques, churches and synagogues, schools and libraries, archives and cultural and educational buildings) under the abhorrent policy of ‘ethnic cleansing’”. 
UNESCO, General Conference, Res. 4.8, 13 November 1993, § 1.

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 UN Secretary-General, Joint declaration on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, 24 October 1991, UNESCO Courier, January 1992, p. 50.

In a press release issued in 1992 in the context of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Director-General of UNESCO declared that, under international law, attacks against the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples constituted grave breaches that must be vigorously condemned and repressed. 
UNESCO, Press Release, Bosnia-Herzegovina: Appeal by the Director-General of UNESCO, 21 May 1992.

In a subsequent press release issued in 1997 in the same context, the Director-General described attacks on cultural and religious monuments as “criminal acts”. 
UNESCO, Press Release No. 97-98, 17 June 1997.

UNESCO
In 1993, in his Report on the Reinforcement of UNESCO’s Action for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the UNESCO Director-General stated with respect to the scope of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property:
Although it was considered highly desirable that an international legal instrument which also protected the natural heritage should be developed, it was agreed that the scope of the 1954 Convention – because of its very distinctive character – should not be extended to include the natural heritage. The protection regime laid down for cultural property in the 1954 Convention did not meet the requirements of an adequate protection regime for the natural heritage. 
Director-General of UNESCO, Report on the Reinforcement of UNESCO’s Action for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, UNESCO Doc. 142 EX/15, 18 August 1993, p. 2, § 6.1.

In its Commentary on the Revised Lauswolt Document in 1997, UNESCO stated that the main point of discussion of the meeting of governmental experts on Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property was the inclusion of the notion of military necessity. The Commentary justified the wording in Article 12(1) by the need “to clarify that it is intended to increase the protection of cultural property, over that provided by Article 19 of the Hague Convention which mentions only ‘respect’”.  
UNESCO, Commentary on the Revised Lauswolt Document, October 1997, pp. 3 and 16.

UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1994, 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 defined the destruction of the historic Ottoman bridge in Mostar, registered with UNESCO as a monument of major cultural importance, as a violation of IHL. 
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, 20 February 1994, §§ 46 and 69.

In 1997, in a report on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights recommended that “priority should be given to domestic and international efforts to preserve and protect the cultural patrimony of Afghanistan”. 
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, § 131.

Back to top
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In 1993, in a report on the destruction by war of the cultural heritage in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Committee on Culture and Education of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly described the conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina as “a tragedy for the peoples of these countries and for all Europe”. It stated that these conflicts “have led to a major cultural catastrophe for all the communities of the war zone … and also for our European heritage” and that “the phrase ethnic cleansing … goes hand in hand with another kind of cleansing – cultural cleansing”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Committee on Culture and Education, Information report on war damage to the cultural heritage in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina, Doc. 6756, 2 February 1993, §§ 1 and 5.

In another report on the same topic issued the following year, the Committee noted that, in response to the international reactions to the destruction of the Mostar Bridge by Croatian Defence Council (HVO) forces, the Herzegovinan Chief of Staff had distributed a brochure describing international provisions concerning IHL, war crimes, cultural heritage and prisoners of war, and promised the severest punishment to members of the armed forces who did not respect the laws of war. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Committee on Culture and Education, Fourth information report on war damage to the cultural heritage in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina, Doc. 6999, 19 January 1994, p. 23.

In a recommendation adopted in 1994 on the cultural situation in the former Yugoslavia, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly stated: “The cultural dimension is, however, constantly exploited by all sides as a means of fuelling the conflict, as a target for intervention, and as a weapon.” It also stated: “One priority is that intergovernmental bodies in the area … should recognise and pay attention to the cultural dimension.” 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Rec. 1239, 14 April 1994, §§ 4 and 9.

OIC Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir
In a statement on the desecration and destruction of the Charar-i-Sharif shrine and mosque complex in 1995, the OIC Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir strongly condemned “attacks against [the] religious and cultural heritage” of the people concerned and deplored the fact that “the desecration of the holy places of Muslims in India had become a pattern over the years”. 
OIC, Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir, Statement on the desecration and destruction of the Charar-i-Sharif shrine and mosque complex, New York, 15 May 1995, annexed to Letter dated 16 May 1995 from Morocco to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/1995/392, 16 May 1995, §§ 2–3.

OIC Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the OIC Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs strongly condemned “the wanton destruction of the cities and historical, religious and cultural heritage of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina”. 
OIC, Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Res. 1/5-EX, 17–18 June 1992, § 8.

Back to top
Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
The draft report of Committee III of the CDDH requested that
the new article be inserted in Part IV, in order to deal with the protection of cultural property along the lines of Article 47 bis [Article 53] of [Additional] Protocol I. The text … conforms in general to the wording of Article 47 bis [Article 53], but without any reference to “reprisals”, which is a term that apparently will not be used in [Additional] Protocol II.
The draft report further stated: “The reference to the Hague Convention of 1954 … is intended to point in particular to Article 19 of that convention, which deals with non-international armed conflicts.” 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XI, CDDH/III/353, Report of Committee III, 21 April–11 June 1976, p. 437, Article 20 bis.

International Conference for the Protection of War Victims
The Final Declaration adopted by the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993 urged all States to “make every effort to … reaffirm and ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law applicable during armed conflicts protecting cultural property [and] places of worship … and continue to examine the opportunity of strengthening them”. 
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § II(10), ILM, Vol. 33, 1994, p. 301.

International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1995)
The Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003 adopted in 1999 by the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent proposed that all the parties to an armed conflict take effective measures to ensure that “in the conduct of hostilities, every effort is made – in addition to the total ban on directing attacks … – … to protect civilian objects including cultural property, places of worship and diplomatic facilities”. 
27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999, Res. I, Annex 2, Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003, Actions proposed for final goal 1.1, § 1(a).

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 noted “the tremendous losses” inflicted by Armenia in the Azeri territories. According to the resolution, these included “complete or partial demolition of rare antiquities and places of Islamic civilization, history and architecture, such as mosques and other sanctuaries, mausoleums and tombs, archaeological sites, museums, libraries, artifact exhibition halls, government theatres and conservatories”, as well as the “destruction of a large number of precious property and millions of books and historic manuscripts and luminaries”. It strongly condemned such “barbaric acts”. 
Islamic Summit Conference, Ninth Session, Doha, November 2000, Res. 25/8-C (IS), preamble and § 1.

African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict
In its Final Declaration, the African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict in 2002, deeply concerned about the number and expansion of conflicts in Africa, denounced the destruction of movable and immovable property of importance to the cultural or spiritual heritage of Africa which seriously violates the rules of IHL. 
African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict, Final Declaration, Niamey, 18–20 February 2002, preamble.

Back to top
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.

In its review of the indictment in the Karadžić and Mladić case in 1996, the ICTY Trial Chamber noted that among the counts included in the first indictment was also “the destruction of sacred sites (count 6)”, an offence which lay within the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, for it could be characterized as a violation of the laws or customs of war. 
ICTY, Karadžić and Mladić case, Review of the Indictment, 11 July 1996, § 6.

As to the evidence produced with respect to this count, the Trial Chamber pointed out:
According to estimates provided at hearing by an expert witness … a total of 1,123 mosques, 504 Catholic churches and five synagogues were destroyed or damaged [by Bosnian Serb forces], for the most part, in the absence of military activity or after the cessation thereof.
The Trial Chamber further noted: “Aside from churches and mosques, other religious and cultural symbols like cemeteries and monasteries were targets of the attacks.” 
ICTY, Karadžić and Mladić case, Review of the Indictment, 11 July 1996, § 15.

In its judgment in the Blaškić case in 2000, the ICTY Trial Chamber, with reference to destruction or wilful damage to institutions dedicated to religion or education, stated:
The damage or destruction must have been committed intentionally to institutions which may clearly be identified as dedicated to religion or education and which were not being used for military purposes at the time of the acts. In addition, the institutions must not have been in the immediate vicinity of military objectives. 
ICTY, Blaškić case, Judgment, 3 March 2000, § 185.

The Trial Chamber found the accused guilty of violating “the laws or customs of war under Article 3(d) of the Statute” for the following acts: “destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion or education (count 14)”.  
ICTY, Blaškić case, Judgment, 3 March 2000, p. 267.

The Naletilić and Martinović case before the ICTY in 2001 dealt with crimes surrounding the military offensive launched in May 1993 by the Army of the Republic of Croatia (HV) and the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) against the Bosnian Muslim population of Mostar (south-western Bosnia and Herzegovina), and the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ABiH). Naletilić was charged, inter alia, with violations of the laws or customs of war (seizure, destruction or wilful damage done to the institutions dedicated to religion – Article 3(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute) for:
Following the capture of Sovici and Doljani on 17 April 1993, [the accused] ordered the destruction of the mosque of Sovici. The mosque was destroyed by the forces under the authority of [the defendant], who at the relevant time was in command over the area occupied by the HV and HVO forces. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Second Amended Indictment, 16 October 2001, § 56, Count 22.

In considering the nature of the crime, the Trial Chamber observed that the Blaškić trial judgment had adopted the following definition:
The damage or destruction must have been committed intentionally to institutions which may clearly be identified as dedicated to religion or education and which were not being used for military purposes at the time of the acts. In addition, the institutions must not have been in the immediate vicinity of military objectives. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment, 31 March 2003, § 603.

The Trial Chamber then stated:
604. The Chamber respectfully rejects that protected institutions “must not have been in the vicinity of military objectives”. The Chamber does not concur with the view that the mere fact that an institution is in the “immediate vicinity of military objective” justifies its destruction.
605. The Chamber considers that a crime under Article 3(d) of the [1993 ICTY] Statute has been committed when:
i) the general requirements of Article 3 of the Statute are fulfilled;
ii) the destruction regards an institution dedicated to religion;
iii) the property was not used for military purposes;
iv) the perpetrator acted with the intent to destroy the property. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment, 31 March 2003, §§ 604–605.

Subsequently, through insufficient evidence, the Trial Chamber made no finding and acquitted the accused on this charge.
In its judgment in the Kordić and Čerkez case in 2001, the ICTY Trial Chamber stated:
The Trial Chamber notes that educational institutions are undoubtedly immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of peoples in that they are without exception centres of learning, arts, and sciences, with their valuable collections of books and works of art and science. 
ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez case, Judgment, 26 February 2001, § 360.

With reference to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, the Trial Chamber stated:
There is little difference between the conditions for the according of general protection and those for the provision of special protection. The fundamental principle is that protection of whatever type will be lost if cultural property, including educational institutions, is used for military purposes, and this principle is consistent with the custom codified in Article 27 of the Hague Regulations. 
ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez case, Judgment, 26 February 2001, § 362.

The Trial Chamber found the accused both guilty of violating “the laws or customs of war, as recognised by Article 3(d) (destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion or education) and pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute of the International Tribunal”. 
ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez case, Judgment, 26 February 2001, p. 308, Counts 43 and 44.

In its judgment on appeal in 2004, the ICTY Appeals Chamber affirmed the sentence handed down by the Trial Chamber to Dario Kordić of 25 years’ imprisonment and resentenced Mario Čerkez to 6 years’ imprisonment. On the matter of whether educational institutions should be considered as “immovable objects of great importance to the cultural heritage of peoples”, the Trial Chamber found the ICRC Commentary on Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I (which refers to objects which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples) to be relevant. It noted that the Commentary referred to the term “cultural or spiritual heritage” as covering objects “whose value transcends geographical boundaries, and which are unique in character and are intimately associated with the history and culture of a people”. 
ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez case, Judgment on Appeal, 17 December 2004, § 90.

As such, the Appeals Chamber considered that educational buildings were unable to fulfil such criteria. For this reason, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber erred when it considered that “educational institutions are undoubtedly immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of peoples”. Notwithstanding this, the Appeals Chamber found: “The crime envisaged of destruction of educational buildings was part of international customary law at the time it was allegedly committed.” 
ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez case, Judgment on Appeal, 17 December 2004, § 92.

In the Slobodan Milošević case before the ICTY in 2002, the accused, a former president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was charged, inter alia, with three counts of destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion, “a violation of the laws or customs of war, punishable under Articles 3(d) and 7(1) and 7(3) of the [1993 ICTY] Statute”. 
ICTY, Slobodan Milošević case, Second Amended Indictment (Croatia), 23 October 2002, §§ 71–72 and 77–83, Counts 19 and 30; Slobodan Milošević case, Amended Indictment (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 22 November 2002, § 42, Count 21.

The role alleged to Milošević in campaigns to forcibly remove non-Serb civilians from areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina formed the context of these charges. 
ICTY, Slobodan Milošević case, Second Amended Indictment (Croatia), 23 October 2002, § 6; Slobodan Milošević case, Amended Indictment (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 22 November 2002, § 6.

Following the death of the accused, proceedings were terminated by the Trial Chamber on 14 March 2006.
In the Miodrag Jokić case before the ICTY in 2003, the accused, a senior officer in the Yugoslav Navy, was charged with six counts of violations of the laws or customs of war, among them 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, as a violation of the laws or customs of war (“punishable under Article […] 3(d) … of the [1993 ICTY Statute]”), for his role in the shelling of Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991. Allegedly, forces under his command and control
18. … unlawfully shelled areas in the Old Town of Dubrovnik, destroying six buildings in the Old Town in their entirety … In addition many more buildings suffered damage.
19. The destruction or wilful damage of the Old Town of Dubrovnik … included destruction or damage to the structures and objects referred to in Article 3 (d) of the Statute of the Tribunal. These structures and objects included, inter alia, institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science …
20. [The accused] was aware of the status of the Old Town of Dubrovnik, in its entirety, as an UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site. [He] was further aware that a number of buildings in the Old Town of Dubrovnik were marked with the symbols mandated by the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954). 
ICTY, Miodrag Jokić case, Second Amended Indictment, 27 August 2003, §§ 18–20, Count 6.

The accused was charged as an aider and abettor under Article 7(1) of the 1993 ICTY Statute or, alternatively, under Article 7(3) of the 1993 ICTY Statute for command responsibility. Following a plea agreement jointly filed by the accused and the prosecution, the accused pleaded guilty to the six counts of violations of the laws or customs of war. The Trial Chamber accepted the plea and entered a corresponding finding of guilt. 
ICTY, Miodrag Jokić case, Sentencing Judgment, 18 March 2004, §§ 5–14.

In the sentencing judgment in 2004, assessing the gravity of the crimes, the Trial Chamber stated:
42. Three of the crimes to which [the accused] has pleaded guilty entail violations of the duty incumbent upon soldiers to direct their operations only against military objectives. In order to comply with this duty, the military must distinguish civilians from combatants and refrain from targeting the former. The other three crimes entail violations of the duty to distinguish civilian objects from military objectives and not to attack protected objects.

46. Another crime to which [the accused] pleaded guilty is the crime of destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, and the arts and sciences, and to historic monuments and works of art and science. This crime represents a violation of values especially protected by the international community.
47. Codification prohibiting the destruction of institutions of this type dates back to the beginning of the last century, with the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (the “Hague Regulations”) and the Hague Convention Concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War of 18 October 1907.
48. The 1954 Hague Convention [for the Protection of Cultural Property] provides a more stringent protection for “cultural property”, as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. The protection comprises duties of safeguard and respect of cultural property under “general protection.”
49. The preamble to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention provides “that deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world.” The Old Town of Dubrovnik was put on the World Heritage List in 1975.
50. Additional Protocols I (art. 53) and II (art. 16) of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 reiterate the obligation to protect cultural property and expand the scope of the prohibition by, inter alia, outlawing “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.” According to the Additional Protocols, therefore, it is prohibited to direct attacks against this kind of protected property, whether or not the attacks result in actual damage. This immunity is clearly additional to the protection attached to civilian objects.
51. The whole of the Old Town of Dubrovnik was considered, at the time of the events contained in the Indictment, an especially important part of the world cultural heritage. It was, among other things, an outstanding architectural ensemble illustrating a significant stage in human history. The shelling attack on the Old Town was an attack not only against the history and heritage of the region, but also against the cultural heritage of humankind. Moreover, the Old Town was a “living city” (as submitted by the Prosecution) and the existence of its population was intimately intertwined with its ancient heritage. Residential buildings within the city also formed part of the World Cultural Heritage site, and were thus protected.
52. Restoration of buildings of this kind, when possible, can never return the buildings to their state prior to the attack because a certain amount of original, historically authentic, material will have been destroyed, thus affecting the inherent value of the buildings.
53. The Trial Chamber finds that, since it is a serious violation of international humanitarian law to attack civilian buildings, it is a crime of even greater seriousness to direct an attack on an especially protected site, such as the Old Town, constituted of civilian buildings and resulting in extensive destruction within the site. More over, the attack on the Old Town was particularly destructive. Damage was caused to more than 100 buildings, including various segments of the Old Town’s walls, ranging from complete destruction to damage to non-structural parts. The unlawful attack on the Old Town must therefore be viewed as especially wrongful conduct.  
ICTY, Miodrag Jokić case, Sentencing Judgment, 18 March 2004, §§ 42 and 46–53.
[emphasis in original]
The Trial Chamber sentenced the accused to seven years’ imprisonment. 
ICTY, Miodrag Jokić case, Sentencing Judgment, 18 March 2004, VI. Disposition, p. 30.

The Appeals Chamber, while vacating the accused’s convictions insofar as they were based on command responsibility, affirmed the sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. 
ICTY, Miodrag Jokić case, Judgment on Sentencing Appeal, 30 August 2005, § 27, IX. Disposition, p. 36.

In the Strugar case before the ICTY in 2003, the accused, a commander in the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA), was charged, inter alia, with 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 (Article 3(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute), for his role in conducting a military campaign against the Dubrovnik region of Croatia. 
ICTY, Strugar case, Third Amended Indictment, 10 December 2003, §§ 19–25, Count 6.

In its Rule 98bis Decision in 2004, the Trial Chamber reaffirmed the following elements of this crime:
(i) the damage or destruction has been committed to institutions which may clearly be identified or regarded as dedicated to religion; (ii) the property was not used for military purposes at the time of the acts and must not have been in the immediate vicinity of military objectives; and (iii) “the perpetrator acted with the intent to destroy the property”. 
ICTY, Strugar case, Rule 98bis Decision, 21 June 2004, § 64.

In its judgment in 2005, the Trial Chamber considered the interpretation of the crime 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:
298. Count 6 of the Indictment charges the Accused with 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, punishable under Article 3(d) of the [1993 ICTY] Statute.
299. Article 3(d) of the Statute reads:
The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons violating the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to:
… (d) 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;
300. This provision has been interpreted in several cases before the Tribunal to date. The Blaskic Trial Chamber adopted the following definition:
The damage or destruction must have been committed intentionally to institutions which may clearly be identified as dedicated to religion or education and which were not being used for military purposes at the time of the acts. In addition, the institutions must not have been in the immediate vicinity of military objectives.
301. The Naletilic Trial Judgement, while rejecting the Blaskic holding that, in order to be protected, the institutions must not have been located in the immediate vicinity of military objectives, held that the elements of this crime with respect to destruction of institutions dedicated to religion would be satisfied if: “(i) the general requirements of Article 3 of the Statute are fulfilled; (ii) the destruction regards an institution dedicated to religion; (iii) the property was not used for military purposes; (iv) the perpetrator acted with the intent to destroy the property.”
302. Further, the Kordic Trial Judgement held that while this offence overlaps to a certain extent with the offence of unlawful attacks on [civilian] objects, when the acts in question are directed against cultural heritage, the provision of Article 3(d) is lex specialis.
303. In order to define the elements of the offence under Article 3(d) it may be useful to consider its sources in international customary and treaty law. Acts against cultural property are proscribed by Article 27 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, by the Hague Convention of 1954, by Article 53 of Additional Protocol I and by Article 16 of Additional Protocol II.
304. Article 27 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 reads:
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
305. Article 4 of The Hague Convention of 1954 requires the States Parties to the Convention to:
1. [… ] respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties by refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict; and by refraining from any act of hostility directed against such property.
2. The obligations mentioned in paragraph 1 of the present Article may be waived only when military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver.

4. They shall refrain from any act directed by way of reprisals against cultural property.
306. Article 53 of Additional Protocol I reads:
Without prejudice to the Provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is 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;
(b) to use such objects in support of the military effort;
(c) to make such objects the object of reprisals.
This text is almost identical in content to the analogous provision in Additional Protocol II (Article 16) the only differences being the absence in the latter of a reference to “other relevant international instruments” and the prohibition on making cultural property the object of reprisals.
307. The Hague Convention of 1954 protects property “of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people.” The Additional Protocols refer to “historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.” The Kordic Appeals Judgement, referring to the ICRC Commentary to Article 53 of Additional Protocol I, stated that despite this difference in terminology, the basic idea [underlying the two provisions] is the same. Whether there may be precise differences is not an issue raised by the facts of this case. The Chamber will limit its discussion to property protected by the above instruments (hereinafter “cultural property”).
308. While the aforementioned provisions prohibit acts of hostility “directed” against cultural property, Article 3(d) of the Statute explicitly criminalises only those acts which result in damage to, or destruction of, such property. Therefore, a requisite element of the crime charged in the Indictment is actual damage or destruction occurring as a result of an act directed against this property.
309. The Hague Regulations of 1907 make the protection of cultural property dependent on whether such property was used for military purposes. The Hague Convention of 1954 provides for an obligation to respect cultural property. This obligation has two explicit limbs, viz. to refrain “from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings… for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event or armed conflict”, and, to refrain “from any act of hostility directed against such property.” The Convention provides for a waiver of these obligations, however, but only when “military necessity imperatively requires such a waiver.” The Additional Protocols prohibit the use of cultural property in support of military efforts, but make no explicit provision for the consequence of such a use, i.e. whether it affords a justification for acts of hostility against such property. Further, the Additional Protocols prohibit acts of hostility against cultural property, without any explicit reference to military necessity. However, the relevant provisions of both Additional Protocols are expressed to be “[w]ithout prejudice to” the provisions of the Hague Convention of 1954. This suggests that in these respects, the Additional Protocols may not have affected the operation of the waiver provision of the Hague Convention of 1954 in cases where military necessity imperatively requires waiver. In this present case, no military necessity arises on the facts in respect of the shelling of the Old Town, so that this question need not be further considered. For the same reason, no consideration is necessary to the question of what distinction is intended (if any) by the word “imperatively” in the context of military necessity in Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Hague Convention of 1954.
310. Nevertheless, the established jurisprudence of the Tribunal confirming the “military purposes” exception which is consistent with the exceptions recognised by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Additional Protocols, persuades the Chamber that the protection accorded to cultural property is lost where such property is used for military purposes. Further, with regard to the differences between the Blaskic and Naletilic Trial Judgements noted above (regarding the use of the immediate surroundings of cultural property for military purposes), and leaving aside any implication of the issue of imperative military necessity, the preferable view appears to be that it is the use of cultural property and not its location that determines whether and when the cultural property would lose its protection. Therefore, contrary to the Defence submission, the Chamber considers that the special protection awarded to cultural property itself may not be lost simply because of military activities or military installations in the immediate vicinity of the cultural property. In such a case, however, the practical result may be that it cannot be established that the acts which caused destruction of or damage to cultural property were “directed against” that cultural property, rather than the military installation or use in its immediate vicinity.
311. As for the mens rea element for this crime, the Chamber is guided by the previous jurisprudence of the Tribunal that a perpetrator must act with a direct intent to damage or destroy the property in question. There is reason to question whether indirect intent ought also to be an acceptable form of mens rea for this crime, but that is an issue not directly raised by the circumstances of this case.
312. In view of the above, the definition established by the jurisprudence of the Tribunal appears to reflect the position under customary international law. For the purposes of this case, an act will fulfil the elements of the crime of destruction or wilful damage of cultural property, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of the Statute and in so far as that provision relates to cultural property, if: (i) it has caused damage or destruction to property which constitutes the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples; (ii) the damaged or destroyed property was not used for military purposes at the time when the acts of hostility directed against these objects took place; and (iii) the act was carried out with the intent to damage or destroy the property in question. 
ICTY, Strugar case, Judgment, 31 January 2005, §§ 298–312.

In its judgment of 2008 the ICTY Appeals Chamber expanded upon the Trial Chamber’s decision that the mens rea element of the crime of destruction or wilful damage of cultural property (Article 3(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute) was limited to direct intent. The Appeals Chamber stated:
The crime of destruction or wilful damage of cultural property under Article 3(d) of the [1993 ICTY] Statute is lex specialis with respect to the offence of unlawful attacks on civilian objects. The mens rea requirement of this crime is therefore also met if the acts of destruction or damage were wilfully (i.e. either deliberately or through recklessness) directed against such “cultural property”. 
ICTY, Strugar case, Judgment on Appeal, 17 July 2008, § 277.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Affirming its previous jurisprudence in the Blaškić and Kordić and Čerkez cases, the Appeals Chamber held:
[M]ilitary necessity is not an element of the crime of destruction of, or damage to cultural property … While the latter’s requirement that the cultural property must not have been used for military purposes may be an element indicating that an object does not make an effective contribution to military action in the sense of Article 52(2) of [the 1977] Additional Protocol I, it does not cover the other aspect of military necessity, namely the definite military advantage that must be offered by the destruction of a military objective. 
ICTY, Strugar case, Judgment on Appeal, 17 July 2008, § 330.

In the Brđanin case before the ICTY in 2003, the accused, Radoslav Brđanin, who was a leading political figure in the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK), Bosnia and Herzegovina, and later a senior figure within the Government of the Republika Srpska, was charged, inter alia, with violations of the laws or customs of war (destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion – Article 3(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute) for having between about 1 April 1992 and 31 December 1992:
62. … acting individually or in concert with others in the Bosnian Serb leadership, planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation, or execution of:
(1) the destruction or wilful damage to Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat property within ARK municipalities [as listed] …
(2) the unlawful wanton destruction or devastation of Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat villages and areas within ARK municipalities [as listed] …; and
(3) the destruction or wilful damage to Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat religious institutions, within ARK municipalities [as listed] …
63. During and after the attacks on these municipalities, Bosnian Serb forces systematically destroyed or damaged Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat cities, towns, villages and property, including homes, businesses and Muslim and Roman catholic sacred sites. Buildings were shelled, torched or dynamited…
64. … [the accused] knew or had reason to know that Bosnian Serb forces under his control were about to commit such acts or had done so, and he failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof. 
ICTY, Brđanin case, Sixth Amended Indictment, 9 December 2003, §§ 62–64, Count 12.

In its consideration of the law surrounding destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, the Trial Chamber noted:
596. The offence of destruction or wilful damage to institutions dedicated to religion overlaps to a certain extent with the offence of unlawful attacks on civilian objects except that the object of the offence of destruction or wilful damage to institutions dedicated to religion is more specific. Institutions dedicated to religion must be presumed to have a civilian character and to enjoy the general protection to which these objects are entitled to under Article 52 of Additional Protocol I. Pursuant to Article 52 of Additional Protocol I, institutions dedicated to religion as general civilian objects should not be attacked. They may be attacked only when they become a military objective. Military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
597. Further, the exception to the protection of institutions dedicated to religion is set out in Article 27 of the Hague Regulations:
[a]ll necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided that they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
598. The “military purpose” exception to the protection of institutions dedicated to religion has been confirmed consistently by this Tribunal. The Trial Chamber agrees that the protection afforded under Article 3 (d) [of the 1993 ICTY Statute] is lost if the property is used for military purposes.
599. With respect to the mens rea requisite of destruction or devastation of property under Article 3 (d), the jurisprudence of this Tribunal is consistent by stating that the mens rea requirement is intent (dolus directus). The Trial Chamber holds that as religious institutions enjoy the minimum protection afforded to civilian objects the mens rea requisite for this offence should be equivalent to that required for the destruction or devastation of property under Article 3 (b). The Trial Chamber, therefore, is of the opinion that the destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion must have been either perpetrated intentionally, with the knowledge and will of the proscribed result or in reckless disregard of the substantial likelihood of the destruction or damage. 
ICTY, Brđanin case, Judgment, 1 September 2004, §§ 596–599.

The Trial Chamber subsequently found that the charge had been proven and that the accused had aided and abetted members of the Bosnian Serb forces in the destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion in the municipalities as listed. 
ICTY, Brđanin case, Judgment, 1 September 2004, § 678.

The accused was thus found guilty on that charge. Having also been found guilty on other charges, including persecutions, torture, and wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity, the accused was sentenced to 32 years’ imprisonment. 
ICTY, Brđanin case, Judgment, 1 September 2004, §§ 1152–1153.

The Appeals Chamber subsequently partially overturned the accused’s convictions related to torture and wanton destruction or devastation not justified by military necessity and reduced the Trial Chamber’s sentence to 30 years’ imprisonment. 
ICTY, Brđanin case, Judgment on Appeal, 3 April 2007, §§ 503–504 and 506.

In the Župljanin case before the ICTY in 2004, the accused, Stojan Župljanin – who, at the time of the alleged offences, was commander of the Regional Security Services Centre (CSB), Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the most senior police officer in the Bosnian Serb-controlled Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK), Bosnia and Herzegovina – was charged, inter alia, with destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, a violation of the laws or customs of war (Article 3(d) of the ICTY Statute), for having, between about 1 April 1992 and 31 December 1992, participated in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE):
44. [The accused] … acting individually or in concert with other participants in the JCE planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or aided and abetted in the planning, preparation, or execution of

(2) the destruction of or wilful damage to Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat religious institutions in the municipalities identified …
45. During and after the attacks on these municipalities, Bosnian Serb forces systematically destroyed or damaged Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat cities, towns, villages and property, including homes, businesses and Muslim and Roman Catholic sacred sites as listed … 
ICTY, Župljanin case, Second Amended Indictment, 6 October 2004, §§ 44–45, Count 12.

In the Vojislav Šešelj case before the ICTY in 2007, the accused, a prominent political figure in the former Yugoslavia, was charged, inter alia, with destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion or education as a violation of the laws or customs of war (Articles 3(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute) for his role in the destruction of religious and cultural buildings in areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
ICTY, Vojislav Šešelj case, Second Amended Indictment, 25 June 2007, § 34, Count 13.

Back to top
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that:
96. [Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] applies to: a) objects representing a high cultural value as such; b) objects with an important religious dedication independent of any cultural value.
97. Historic monuments, works of art and places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples enjoy full protection. Their immunity may not be withdrawn, contrary to that of marked cultural objects. Their value is generally self-evident and does not require special identification means.
98. [Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property] applies to objects representing a cultural value as such, independently of their religious or secular character.
99. “Cultural object under general protection” means an object of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as:
a) monuments of architecture, art or history; archaeological sites: groups of buildings which as a whole are of historic or artistic interest;
b) buildings whose main purpose is to preserve movable cultural objects such as museums, large libraries, depositories of archives, shelters of cultural objects;
c) centres containing a large amount of immovable cultural objects.

225. The immunity of a cultural object under general protection may be withdrawn only in case of imperative military necessity. The competences for establishing this military necessity must be regulated. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 96–99 and 225.

Delegates further stress that an “unlawful attack of clearly-recognized cultural objects” constitutes a grave breach of the law of war. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 778(d).

National Societies (Hungary and Yugoslavia)
In a joint statement issued in 1991, the Yugoslav Red Cross and the Hungarian Red Cross expressed their deep concern about “the protracting internal conflict in Yugoslavia” and urged the parties to the conflict “to save all … cultural objects”. 
Yugoslav Red Cross and Hungarian Red Cross, Joint Statement, Subotica, 25 October 1991.

National Society (Slovenia)
In 1991, in the context of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the Slovene Red Cross condemned the destruction of cultural, historical and religious monuments. 
Slovene Red Cross, Protest and Appeal, 22 September 1991, § 1.

ICRC
In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC, emphasizing the customary law nature of most grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, listed the following as a war crime to be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC:
making the clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement … the object of attack, causing as a result thereof, where there is no evidence of the use by the adverse Party of such objects in support of the military effort, and when such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives, when committed wilfully and in violation of international humanitarian law. 
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 14 February 1997, § 1(c)(iv).

The ICRC also included attacks directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples in a list of serious violations of IHL applicable in non-international armed conflicts. 
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 14 February 1997, § 3(x).

Back to top
Institute of International Law
In a resolution adopted during its Edinburgh Session in 1969, the Institute of International Law stated that “those objects which, by their nature or use, serve primarily humanitarian or peaceful purposes such as religious or cultural needs” cannot be considered as military objectives.  
Institute of International Law, Edinburgh Session, Resolution on the Distinction between Military Objectives and Non-Military Objects in General and Particularly the Problems Associated with Weapons of Mass Destruction, 9 September 1969, § 3(b).

Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A)
The Report on SPLM/A Practice states, with reference to the 1983 SPLM/A Manifesto and a resolution on human rights and civil liberties adopted in 1991 by the Politico-Military High Command of the SPLM/A, that “cultural objects which include religious monuments, buildings such as mosques and churches and various icons are respected by the SPLM/A”. 
Report on SPLM/A Practice, 1998, Chapter 4.2, referring to SPLM/A, Manifesto, July 1983, Article 24(C) and PMHC Resolution No. 15: Human Rights and Civil Liberties, 11 September 1991, § 15.2.

Africa Watch
In 1989, in a report on violations of the laws of war in Angola, Africa Watch considered that cultural property as defined by the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property must be considered as civilian objects. 
Africa Watch, Angola: Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides, New York, April 1989, pp. 144–147.

International Council on Archives
At the 1998 Vienna expert meeting on the revision of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, the International Council on Archives pointed out that since the Second World War archives and libraries have suffered major losses mainly in the context of non-international conflicts, in particular in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia and Liberia. 
International Council on Archives, Expert Meeting on the Revision of the 1954 Hague Convention, Vienna, 11–13 May 1998, Summary of comments received from States Parties to the Hague Convention, the ICRC and the International Council on Archives, pp. 6 and 7.