062 cultural heritage sites have been either destroyed or damaged during the aggression. This unnecessary, unjustified and arbitrary military destruction of cultural heritage is not just an assault on built fabric, but also on what it means for the Ukrainian people and for their well-defined historical European cultural identity, in accordance with the principles of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (CETS No. 199, “Faro Convention”).

6. A legal response to these threats to cultural heritage, destruction of collective and individual identity andaffront to human dignity can be found in an effective implementation of relevant treaty and customaryinternational law, including the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of ArmedConflict (1954) and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War(1949) and their respective Protocols, and human rights instruments governing the enjoyment of cultural rightsand expression of cultural identities. However, the international legal framework concerning cultural heritage inarmed conflict remains fragmented and has significant gaps, particularly in relation to new types of warfareand to the safeguarding of cultural heritage after conflicts. The return of cultural heritage and restoration ofdamaged heritage objects are also matters of concern. In addition, loopholes in international law anddifferences in the way different legal orders recognise and implement the principle of universal jurisdictionover international crimes make it difficult to bring perpetrators to justice before international or national courts.This further leads to difficulties in providing full reparations for destroyed, looted and irreversibly damagedobjects of cultural property, and in many instances restitution for such losses or the return of objects remains adifficult challenge. Practical steps are needed to remove these obstacles to judicial remedies.

7. While the Ukrainian situation and the tragic disrespect of Ukrainian cultural heritage and identity by theRussian Federation are an extreme example of this form of barbarianism and call for specific responses, theAssembly is also deeply concerned by the frequent severe threats to both tangible and intangible culturalheritage and to cultural identities of populations, faced in other contexts and locations and triggered by war orby tensions among communities in post-war periods.

8. Recalling its Resolution 2057 (2015) “Cultural heritage in crisis and post-crisis situations”, the Assemblyemphasises that corrosive and coercive policies of cultural erasure require in response a holistic policy actionacross the fields of culture, education, heritage management, mass media, criminal accountability,reparations, remembrance, transitional justice and reconciliation. Remedial action is necessary but there isalso a need to work more on prevention as a way to put an end to the ongoing destructive acts againstcultural heritage. A human rights approach, with a key role for education, should be embedded in this holisticstrategy. Local populations should be involved in this sensitive policy making, since local knowledge, attentionto local perspectives and community participation are crucial in countering the erasure of cultural identity,restoring cultural heritage and objects as part of the collective memory, and promoting cultural resilienceduring and after the war.

9. On this basis, the Assembly recommends that member States of the Council of Europe:

9.1. sign and ratify the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritagefor Society (CETS No. 199, 2005, “Faro Convention”) and the Council of Europe Convention onOffences relating to Cultural Property (CETS No. 221, 2017, “Nicosia Convention”), if they have not yetdone so;

9.2. co-operate with the United Nations, the European Union and other relevant organisations, toundertake a review of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event ofArmed Conflict (1954) and of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons inTime of War (1949) and their protocols, in particular to:

9.2.1. establish more robust pre-emptive protective mechanisms for both tangible and intangible cultural heritage of all groups and communities, in times of war and in post-conflict situations;

9.2.2. reinforce sanctions for arbitrary military destruction which is not justified by an “imperative military necessity”, an exception which should be subject to strict interpretation and be convincingly proved by the perpetrators;

9.2.3. expand their regulatory scope to address less obvious violations against cultural heritage such as cultural cleansing and cultural erasure;

9.2.4. provide for full reparations, based on international law on State responsibility, in particular through restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition of damages to and destruction of tangible and intangible heritage

Resolution 2558 (2024)

II SÉRIE-D — NÚMERO 16_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

56