A/HRC/17/38 E. Initiatives at the national level 49. As indicated by the responses to the independent expert’s questionnaire, many national constitutions include the State’s obligation to protect cultural heritage and/or recognize the right of people to access culture or cultural heritage. This further demonstrates the importance accorded by States to cultural heritage issues. Although the measures adopted often aim at the preservation/safeguard of the heritage itself, as well as the promotion of tourism and development, ultimate goals include public awareness, education, and access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage by all. In their responses, many States made a link between respect for cultural rights, cultural diversity, and the need to preserve/safeguard cultural heritage. Some also provided information on measures adopted to ensure the preservation/safeguard of the cultural heritage of minorities and indigenous peoples, including their languages. 50. State institutions are usually entrusted with the task of identifying and classifying cultural heritage. Some stakeholders claim that in some countries, challenges are encountered in obtaining information on procedures for the recognition of cultural heritage. 51. However, several States have reported efforts to ensure the involvement of individuals and communities, in particular, but not only, with regard to intangible heritage. For instance, in Austria, communities, groups and individuals that create, maintain and transmit intangible heritage are involved in the process of identification; tradition bearers and practitioners may, with the consent of the communities concerned, request the inclusion of an element of living traditions in the national inventory. In Syria, heritage bearers and practitioners are encouraged to participate in the identification of intangible heritage, and communities are actively involved in safeguarding activities. In Canada, First Nations are involved in the identification and classification of national parks, historic sites and marine conservation areas; there are also provincial measures involving indigenous peoples. In Nicaragua, local cultural actors participate in the identification of local cultural heritage through the National Inventory of the Cultural Goods of Nicaragua. In Cuba and Venezuela, communities are associated in the identification and classification of cultural heritage. The Ombudsman of Portugal reported on concrete examples of participation by interested persons and groups in the determination of cultural heritage, and Portugal mentioned a nationwide inventory of intangible cultural heritage that will be put on-line to ensure the widest participation of communities, groups and individuals in the safeguarding of their intangible heritage and the making of inventories. Malaysia reported on formal and informal information and presentations made to “various groups of users and interested groups” in regard to cultural heritage. 52. A number of States provide for the participation of the public at large, citizens or interested persons, in cultural heritage identification processes (for example, Canada, Georgia, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Portugal and Uzbekistan). The Dominican Republic reported on a draft law to ensure the participation of interested persons, including through cooperation with the mass media. Some States reported that information on cultural heritage identification and classification is publicly disseminated (for example, Canada, Italy and Spain), or that the civil society, through associations working in the field of cultural heritage, is involved in identification and classification processes (for example, Monaco and Switzerland). 53. The independent expert notes that in most cases the final decision for identification/ classification of cultural heritage lies with State institutions. Reference to “stakeholders” or “interested persons” is not always defined at the national level, and variously includes, for example, State institutions, local authorities, experts, public or private owners, associations, communities and/or individuals. The need to ensure the participation of source or local communities, and actively seek their consent is not always clearly stated. 14