A/71/317 abuse. It was inserted to encourage ratifications and for the sake of practicality, with the understanding that only “imperative” military necessity was sufficient to indicate a high threshold. 51 No further guidance is afforded on how it should be interpreted on the terms of the Convention itself. The Second Protocol alters this concept by requiring that imperative necessity apply only when the cultural property in question has been transformed into a military objective and when “there is no feasible alternative available to obtain a similar military advantage ”. Experts have argued that this provision should be understood in practical terms as a complement to article 4 of the Convention itself, and could become customary international law. 52 64. Given the threat of irreversible and grave impact on the enjoyment of cultural rights, parties to conflicts as well as national and international cri minal courts should recognize any military necessity exception to the ban on targeting cultural property or using it in ways that put it at risk as being indeed highly exceptional and as not constituting a readily available discretionary loophole. A broadl y interpreted exception swallows a rule. This means that (a) it is essential for the protection of cultural rights that States ratify the Second Protocol, (b) even non -ratifying States should consider applying the standard it contains and (c) this standard should itself be interpreted narrowly. Such an interpretation is especially important with regard to such concepts as “no feasible alternative”, with cultural rights always to be taken into consideration, as they are an integral part of fundamental human rights. Not all military advantages, and certainly not those that are not related to preserving human life, should be deemed as outweighing the imperative of protection of cultural heritage. 65. Article 7 of the Second Protocol underscores the importance o f proportionality, requiring that a Party must “refrain from deciding to launch an attack which may be expected to cause incidental damage … which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated ”. Carrying out attacks on legitimate targets under the laws of war when those attacks pose significant threats to important cultural sites should also be greatly disfavoured even for non-parties to this Protocol, and considered in light not only of the laws of war but of their impact on cultural rights. Close scrutiny of all military decisions resulting in destruction of cultural heritage, and public accountability for those decisions, are essential. Naming and shaming with regard to all instances in which cultural heritage is destroyed in armed conflict in deliberate, indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, or in attacks that could have been avoided, are de rigueur. These are crimes against the heritage of humanity and gross violations of the cultural rights of current and future generations, which cannot be undone. 66. Moreover, if States or other actors do respect international humanitarian norms in specific actions, yet the cumulative effect of those actions during a conflict is to destroy a significant number of cultural heritage sites in a particular country, or especially important sites, then such actions, while potentially legal under international humanitarian law, still raise grave concerns with regard to cultural rights and may constitute violations of human rights. International humanitarian law __________________ 51 52 18/24 Gerstenblith, “The destruction of cultural heritage”, pp. 367-370. See footnote 18. Jiří Toman, Cultural Property in War: Improvement in Protection — Commentary on the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protectio n of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, World Heritage Series (Paris, UNESCO, 2009), p. 96. 16-13742