A/HRC/52/35 72. That issue was discussed with respect to Jewish migrants leaving Europe after 1945 and after 1968. 67 There have been cases in which Holocaust victims could not regain possession of their cultural objects looted during the war, even when they could recover the ownership title. In fact, many victims leaving Europe for Israel and the United States were forced to “donate” their properties to territorial States, often those involved in the genocide. A relevant case is that of Maria Altmann and six famous Klimt paintings.68 Altmann sued Austria and the Austrian National Gallery in the United States to recover six paintings by Gustav Klimt that the Nazis had taken during the Second World War from her Jewish relatives, Ferdinand and Adele Bloch-Bauer. Although the Supreme Court of the United States lifted the jurisdictional immunity of Austria, the disputants reached an agreement to end the litigation and submit the dispute to arbitration in Austria. The arbitration panel ruled that Austria was obliged to return five of the Klimt masterpieces to Maria Altmann. 69 73. Irrespective of the acquired rights of others, the original individual owners of cultural objects should still be able to rely on a “heritage title” if there is a continuing cultural link. Whichever way the ownership interests are accounted for in national private law, cultural rights have an important role to play in addressing the individual heritage interests of migrants. 70 Neither the existing legal framework for the art trade, based on the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, nor regular ownership concepts appear particularly suited to solving title issues relating to contested cultural objects.71 A human rights approach, where the cultural right of migrants to access and enjoy cultural heritage objects is acknowledged, can act as a bridge in that regard. That is consistent with the position of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment No. 21 (2009) that: “States parties should not prevent migrants from maintaining their cultural links with their countries of origin” (para. 34). Depriving migrants of personal belongings, including jewellery which may have affective value, should also be eliminated as a practice. 72 74. Archives left behind by individuals and ethnic, political or religious groups who are forced to leave their countries or territories, must also be protected and migrants allowed access to them by the State of origin or wherever those archives are kept. All States should respect their obligations to take steps to protect such archives by ensuring safe preservation and secure access, including by the individuals and groups who were forced to leave. That is in line with General Assembly resolution 68/165. 75. Finally, important directions come from the European Court of Human Rights on migrants’ access to immovable objects in their State of origin. In the case of Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, the Court held that Armenian migrants who had forcibly left Azerbaijan because of the war must have access to the graves of their ancestors. 73 XI. Recommendations 76. Migration enables individuals, both migrants and the host population, to reevaluate their cultural frameworks and be positively influenced by other ideas, values and practices. In that process, States must be aware of the vulnerabilities of migrants and take measures to enable them to enjoy their cultural rights, irrespective of their status. Substantive equality requires States to keep looking at ways to protect migrants’ 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 16 See John Henry Merryman, Law, Ethics and the Visual Art, 5 edn, 2007, 140–141. See arbitral award - five Klimt paintings, Maria V. Altmann and others v. Republic of Austria, 15 January 2006. See also opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, 7 June 2004, available from www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-13.ZO.html. See https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-affaires/6-klimt-paintings-2013-maria-altmann-andaustria/case-note-2013-six-klimt-paintings-2013-maria-altmann-and-austria/view. See Lucas Lixinski, “Moving cultures: engaging refugee and migrant culture rights in international heritage law”, Indonesian Journal of International Law, vol. 16, No. 1 (2018). Evelien Campfens, “Whose cultural objects? Introducing heritage title for cross-border cultural property claims”, Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 67, No. 2 (September 2020). See submission of the International Council of Archives, Section on Archives and Human Rights. Application number 40167/06, 16 June 2015. GE.23-01011