A/HRC/31/59 purposes, historic monuments and hospitals provided they are not military objectives in either international or non-international armed conflict may be tried as a war crime.23 64. In addition, the destruction of cultural property with discriminatory intent can be charged as a crime against humanity and the intentional destruction of cultural and religious property and symbols can also be considered as evidence of intent to destroy a group within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (see A/HRC/17/38 and Corr.1, para. 15). In 2014, the Office on Genocide Prevention and Responsibility to Protect developed a new Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes: a Tool for Prevention to assess the risk of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, in which destruction of property of cultural and religious significance is considered a significant indicator in the prevention of atrocity crimes.24 65. Following the adoption by the Security Council of its resolution 2199 (2015) and as a response to the increase in deliberate attacks on cultural heritage as a weapon of war, UNESCO has developed a strategy to strengthen its capacity to respond urgently to cultural emergencies. The strategy explicitly refers to human rights and cultural rights and develops actions to be taken to reduce the vulnerability of cultural heritage before, during and after conflict. It also includes rehabilitation of cultural heritage as an important cultural dimension, which can strengthen intercultural dialogue, humanitarian action, security strategies and peacebuilding.25 UNESCO recently convened a group of experts to explore whether the notion of the “responsibility to protect”, as found in paragraphs 138-140 of resolution 60/1 in which the General Assembly adopted the 2005 World Summit Outcome, could be applied in the context of cultural heritage. The expert group recognized that the intentional destruction and misappropriation of cultural heritage can constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity and can indicate genocidal intent, and thus may fall within the scope of the “responsibility to protect”.26 C. Intentional destruction of cultural heritage: cultural warfare and “cultural cleansing” 66. The Special Rapporteur has been appalled by recent events in which cultural heritage has been intentionally targeted and destroyed in both conflict and non-conflict situations. In the UNESCO Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage, “intentional destruction” is defined as “an act intended to destroy in whole or in part cultural heritage, thus compromising its integrity, in a manner which constitutes a violation of international law or an unjustifiable offence to the principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience”. Examples include cases publicly raised by the Special Rapporteur’s predecessor, such as the destruction of Sufi religious and historic sites in Libya in 2011 and 2012 and the torching by armed groups of the Ahmed Baba Institute, one of the most important libraries in Timbuktu, Mali, as their occupation of the city was ending in January 2013, as well as the destruction of mausoleums, which are important in cultural practice in that city. These attacks, which deeply affected the local populations, are just a few examples and reports are forthcoming from a number of regions of the world of a similar pattern of attacks by States and non-State actors. 23 24 25 26 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 8 (2) (b) (ix) and (e) (iv). United Nations, Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes: a Tool for Prevention (2014). Reinforcement of UNESCO’s Action for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralisms in the Event of Armed Conflict, UNESCO documents 38 C/49 and 197/EX/10. International Expert Meeting on the Responsibility to Protect as applied to the Protection of Cultural Heritage, recommendations, 26-27 November 2015, Paris. 15