A/HRC/31/59 proper national implementation of the Hague Convention is a condicio sine qua non for the effective respect for cultural property in the event of armed conflict”.19 59. The Special Rapporteur recalls that many provisions of the Hague Convention are deemed to rise to the level of customary international law,20 binding both States not party to the Convention as well as non-State actors. She further concurs with experts that “the prohibition of acts of deliberate destruction of cultural heritage of major value for humanity” rises to the level of customary international law and is a norm which is supported by “a general opinio juris”.21 60. In the UNESCO Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage adopted in 2003, the international community reaffirms its commitment to fight against the intentional destruction of cultural heritage in any form so that it may be transmitted to the succeeding generations. States are unequivocally instructed to prevent, avoid, stop and suppress intentional destruction, wherever such heritage is located. The Special Rapporteur affirms the importance of the 2003 UNESCO Declaration and calls for its full implementation. 61. Importantly, the 2003 UNESCO Declaration asserts that States should adhere to the 1954 Hague Convention and the two protocols thereto if they have not done so, and strive toward “coordinated application” of these international instruments. The Special Rapporteur underscores that the 2003 UNESCO Declaration requires States to cooperate to protect cultural heritage. 62. An additional concern for the Special Rapporteur is the fact that many standards focus on States’ obligations, which are crucial but not the only relevant issues. There are important provisions that can help address the role of non-State actors, such as article 19 of the Hague Convention, which applies to non-international conflicts, as well as article 8 of the Rome Statute and article 16 of the Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. The latter prohibits 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 applies to both State and non-State actors in the context of non-international armed conflicts. The Special Rapporteur believes that, in addition to tackling the role of States, attention must also be paid to the robust use of these standards – and developing other strategies – for holding non-State actors to account and preventing their engaging in destruction. This is especially important in contexts where the exercise of State due diligence may be impossible. One added value of a human rights approach is the reminder that, in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every individual and every organ of society has a duty to promote respect for human rights. 63. Individual criminal responsibility arises from serious offences against cultural heritage.22 According to the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable 19 20 21 22 14 Jan Hladik, “The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: some observations on the implementation at the national level”, MUSEUM International, No. 228, Protection and Restitution (2005), p. 7. Francesco Francioni and Federico Lanzerini, “The destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and international law”, European Journal of International Law, vol. 14, No. 4 (2003), p. 619. Ibid., p. 635. See, e.g., Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, art. 3 (d).