A/71/317 V. A human rights approach to the intentional destruction of cultural heritage A. The importance of a human rights approach 52. The intentional destruction of cultural heritage, and the responses to it, have many human rights-related implications. Except in a few important initiatives, 38 and as highlighted by the joint statement made at the thirty-first session of the Human Rights Council and new strategies deployed at UNESCO, the destruction of cultural heritage is generally still not addressed by the international community as a question of human rights. 39 This situation must change. Most often, intentional destruction of cultural heritage constitutes a violation of human rights and may be accompanied by other grave human rights violations. It is crucial that human rights mechanisms address this issue as a matter of priority. The Special Rapporteur sketches the contours of a human rights approach below. 53. The human rights approach to cultural heritage obliges one to go beyond preserving and safeguarding an object or a manifestation in itself to take into account the rights of individuals and groups in relation to such object or manifestation and to connect cultural heritage with its source of production (see A/HRC/17/38 and Corr.1, para. 2). It is impossible to separate a people ’s cultural heritage from the people itself and that people’s rights. The importance of having access to one’s own cultural heritage and to that of others has been emphasized by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment No. 21. A human rights approach must also emphasize the many living connections between tangible and intangible heritage, and focus on the ways in which attacks on each are interrelated. 54. A human rights approach emphasizes accountability and the combating of impunity. The Special Rapporteur welcomed the decision of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to charge the destruction of cultural and religious sites as a stand-alone war crime for the first time 40 in the case of Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi. 41 Commenting on this case, Richard Goldstone, a former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, has noted that “(I)t is to the credit of the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC that these crimes have been prioritised by her office”, so as “to … bring to justice those alleged to have been complicit in the perpetration of these enormous affronts to the dignity and culture of so many human beings”. 42 The Special Rapporteur hopes to witness __________________ 38 39 40 41 42 16-13742 Note, for example, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and International Centre for Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), “World heritage and rights-based approaches”, report from Workshop in Oslo, 1-3 April 2014. Available online. See, also, the memorandum submitted by Elsa Stamatopoulou to the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, 12 December 2015. See the press release of 4 March 2016 entitled “The destruction of cultural heritage is a violation of human rights”. Available at www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx? NewsID=17151&LangID=E. Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Situation in the Republic of Mali, Public Court Records: Pre-Trial Chamber I. See www.icc-cpi.int for all related documents. Richard Goldstone, “The war crime of destroying cultural property”, International Judicial Monitor, 2016. 15/24