6 SC

C70/18/6.SC/Report Paris, May 2018 Original: English

Limited Distribution

Sixth Session of the Subsidiary Committee of the Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property

(UNESCO, Paris, 1970)

Sixth Session Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, Room XI 28 and 29 May 2018

FINAL REPORT

MONDAY, 28 MAY – MORNING SESSION

OPENING SESSION

1. The Assistant Director•General for Culture, Mr Ernesto Ottone Ramirez, welcomed the delegations to the 6th Session of the Subsidiary Committee, noting the increasing number of participants that indicated the growing interest of the international community in the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural objects. He commended the new ratifications since the last session in 2017. There were now 137 States Parties to the Convention. He spoke of the new worrisome trends including: the destruction of heritage in conflict zones; the funding of terrorism through illicit trafficking of cultural property; money laundering by transnational criminal organizations; sales of cultural goods online; the prevention of illicit trafficking and youth education; and the training of young people to fight this scourge in conflict zones. With these evolving issues in mind, the following instruments emerged: the Council of Europe Convention on Offenses relating to Cultural Property1, adopted in 2017; the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the import of cultural goods2, and the different Resolutions of the UN Security Council3. He spoke of how international cooperation in the fight against illicit trafficking was more vital than ever given the growing internationalization of crime, the privatization of trade, and the outbreak of conflict in regions rich in heritage. Since the last Committee session, there had been numerous successful seizures of trafficked cultural property, as well as returns and restitutions. Operation Pandora 2 in October 2017 resulted in the seizures of over 41,000 cultural objects in Europe. This operational success should be seen as a model of international cooperation and inspire other similar initiatives. These efforts undertaken by UNESCO and its Member States would be in vain if education and training was not placed at the heart of these actions. Activities aimed at young people, such as the #Unite4Heritage campaign, were crucial for preventing the illicit trafficking of cultural heritage. Negotiations were also ongoing between UNESCO and some of the world’s largest universities and the establishment of the UNTWIN Network in the MENA4 region.

ELECTION OF THE BUREAU

2. The outgoing Chairperson, Ms Silva Breshani (Albania) joined the podium to oversee the election of the Bureau. On behalf of Group V(b), Iraq proposed Mr Wael Abdelwahab from Egypt as Chairperson. He joined the podium to invite nominations for a Rapporteur and the four Vice-Chairpersons. Cyprus nominated Zambia as Rapporteur. Mr Flexon M. Mizinga of Zambia accepted the nomination. On behalf of Electoral Group I, Sweden nominated Cyprus as Vice-Chairperson. On behalf of Electoral Group III, Honduras nominated Bolivia as Vice-Chairperson. On behalf of Electoral Group II, Armenia proposed Albania as Vice- Chairperson.There were some minor changes to the agenda and Decision 6.SC 3 [on the agenda] was adopted.

ORAL REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR ON THE 5th SUBSIDIARY COMMITTEE SESSION

3. The Rapporteur, Ms Zeynep Boz (Turkey) recalled that the opening speech was delivered by former Assistant Director-General for Culture, Mr Francesco Bandarin, and she welcomed the new ADG, Mr Ernesto Ottone Ramirez. During the fifth session, seven decisions were adopted, among which Decision 5.SC 4B that called upon States Parties to provide more financial resources and support for activities. In 2017, there were presentations made by the UN Sanctions Monitoring Team, Interpol, WCO, UNIDROIT and

1 Read more about the Convention here. 2 Read more about the Proposal here. 3 Read more about the UN SC Resolution 2347 (2017) here, and UN SC Resolution 2199 (2015) here. 4 MENA – Middle East North Africa.

the EU. The UN Sanctions Monitoring Team underlined the challenges they faced while implementing the UN Security Council Resolutions. The WCO spoke about the practical steps taken in relation to enforcement in some cases. Interpol presented Operation Pandora. The EU spoke about import restriction initiatives aimed at impeding the laundering of illegally exported cultural artefacts. ICOM informed the Committee about the G7 meeting that took place in March 2017, which resulted in the signing of the Declaration of Florence. The Secretariat’s presentation informed the Committee on the new electronic reporting system. Presentations were also made by UNESCO Field Offices covering mostly countries in emergency situations. With regard to ‘new perspectives on education’, the Rapporteur recalled the ILLICID Initiative and the UNITWIN Network. In its Decision 5.SC 5A.Rev, the Committee welcomed the UNITWIN Initiative and requested the coordinator to report on the actions taken to support the implementation of the Convention. In its Decision 5.SC 6bis, the Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare a questionnaire and to collect the proposals from States Parties in order to improve the implementation of the Convention, which was the rationale behind the half-day session that took place earlier in the day.

REPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT

4. The Secretariat was currently composed of five permanent members, two Assistant Project Officers and two Consultants, and a regular biennium budget of US$680,000 for Headquarters activities and US$539,000 for Field activities. Between May 2017 and May 2018, the Secretariat received extrabudgetary resources of US$88,603 from Sweden and US$5,824 from Monaco. From its cooperation with the European Union, the Secretariat received €100,000 for the project entitled ‘Engaging the European Art Market in the Fight Against Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property’ and €300,000 for the project entitled ‘Training Magistrates and Police Forces of the European Union to Fight Against the Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property’. Regarding its activities, the Secretariat spoke of the UNITWIN Network and the conference ‘Cultural Heritage and Identity: an Arab Youth Perspective’5, held in Carthage (Tunisia) in March 2017. On July 27, the UNESCO Beirut Office published an educational video on the prevention of illicit trafficking of cultural property. The Secretariat also worked with the association Marché de l’Art of the Ecole du Louvre on the presentation of a legal framework focused on art professionals, as well as with the University of Sorbonne. The Secretariat outlined the new ratifications of the 1970 Convention. On international cooperation, the Secretariat was pursuing the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2199 (2015). The Secretariat was engaged in large number of emergency actions, notably in Iraq, Mali and Syria whose experts would make a presentation later in the session. A needs assessment mission for the restoration and preservation of ancient manuscripts at the University of Benghazi took place following a report that they were in a worrying state of conservation. The Secretariat, in close collaboration with field offices and governmental and non-governmental partners, was implementing training and capacity-building programmes in all regions of the world. Nine training workshops had been organized in Argentina, Bolivia, Egypt Italy, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Mauritius, Senegal and Swaziland. In accordance with Decision 5.SC 9A, the Secretariat continued working on finalizing the online reporting tool. The Secretariat continued to develop the Database on National Cultural Heritage Laws by extending the coverage of legislation and the availability of translations, requesting contributions from Member States to continue this work. 5. Sweden congratulated the Secretariat for the conference held with the European art market stakeholders. Sweden spoke of exchanges at the national level between Swedish cultural heritage professionals and officials from the police, customs officers and the prosecution authorities in the exchange of information on current cases, including ongoing consultations between several national authorities concerned with illicit trafficking in light of UN Security

5 Read more about the conference here.

Council Resolution 2199. In addition, the Nordic Cooperation was still ongoing. Sweden spoke of its priority to provide extrabudgetary funds to strengthen the work carried out by the small Secretariat. It was also engaged in discussions in the Governance Group on governance reform. The Republic of Korea noted the international cooperation from diverse fields, reflecting the complexity of illicit trafficking of cultural property. It noted the increasing number of training and awareness•training workshops, which it considered of great importance, and it spoke of the many government initiatives Korea had undertaken in this regard. Bolivia highlighted a workshop conducted by the Secretariat in Bolivia that included a specialist from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, which resulted in the countries creating a National Committee to work on the prevention and control of illicit trafficking of cultural heritage. 6. Ms Mechtild Rössler thanked Sweden in particular for its financial contributions, assuring the Committee that there was close follow-up on the governance reform with all six culture Conventions in the regular discussions held within the Cultural Conventions Liaison Group (CCLG). The Secretariat recalled the discussion during the 5th session of the Subsidiary Committee and Decision 4.MSP 8 of the Meeting of the States Parties on a possible procedure to identify priority topics before sessions that would give Committee Members more flexibility in determining topics. As a result, the Bureau pre-selected three topics from the proposed topics for the next Committee meeting. The Secretariat then spoke of the electronic reporting tool under elaboration, currently in Phase 1. Phase 2 would allow for the result of the questionnaire to be used as a baseline to create special features, such as a search engine, the visual displays and maps. The Secretariat then explained how the reporting tool would work in terms of submitting completed responses, validation and publication of the questionnaire. It was hoped that the online reporting tool would help States Parties fully participate and report on their implementation of the Convention. The Chairperson proceeded with the draft decision on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Paragraph 1 considered the working document. Paragraph 2 thanked the Members of the Committee and the States Parties who generously provided financial support. Germany proposed that paragraph 2 also consider the financial contribution by the European Union of €400,000. A discussion ensued about Observer status as Observers were not allowed to take the floor during the adoption of decisions. Observers wishing to amend or propose amendments were asked to contact the Members of the Committee who could present them. Paragraph 3 noted the Secretariat’s activities between the reporting period. The GRULAC Group proposed a number of new paragraphs that highlighted the importance of maintaining cooperation with key partners and other organizations, as well as the Field offices. Paragraph 6 invited the Secretariat to strengthen the communication policy of UNESCO. Paragraph 7 requested the Secretariat to deploy major actions for promoting capacity building, training and awareness-raising in the fight against the illicit trafficking. Paragraph 8 took into account Decision EX204/51A of the Executive Board that included the framework of cooperation between UNESCO and the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage in Conflict Areas (ALIPH)’. Paragraph 9 proposed by Sweden requested the Secretariat to follow-up on the relevant recommendations on governance reform. Paragraph 10 invited the Members of the Committee and the States Parties to increase their human and financial support for activities designed to support the effective implementation of the Convention. Paragraph 11 encouraged ratification of the 1970 Convention and the UNIDROIT Convention. Decision 6.SC 5 was declared adopted.

ELECTION OF BUREAU (CONT.)

7. Returning to the composition of the Bureau, on behalf of Electoral Group IV, the Republic of Korea proposed India as Vice-Chairperson. The Subsidiary Committee thus elected Mr Wael Abdelwahab (Egypt) as Chairperson and Mr Flexon Mizinga (Zambia) as Rapporteur. The elected Vice-Chairpersons were Albania, Bolivia, Cyprus and India. Decision 6.SC 2 was declared adopted.

REFLECTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

8. The Secretariat presented the main points of the half-day session. Part 1: Strengthening the implementation of the Convention: the following points were noted: i) addressing gaps in the 1970 Convention; ii) the revision of the Convention with regard to restitution; iii) better understanding and use of existing tools, i.e. the Operational Guidelines; iv) reinforcing training among youth, art markets, magistrates, heritage professionals, and public awareness among the media; v) strengthening synergies between the Subsidiary Committee and the ICPRCP; and vi) developing a procedure for restitution. Regarding Part 2: Improving the effectiveness of the Convention, the following points were noted regarding mediation and conciliation: i) apply the Rules of Procedure of the ICPRCP on mediation and conciliation to the Subsidiary Committee; and ii) increase cases formally submitted to the ICPRCP. Regarding the interaction between the Subsidiary Committee and the ICPRCP: i) merge the agendas of the two Committees on common topics, such as Internet sales; ii) reconcile the work of both Committees on the cases of return and restitution; and iii) do not endanger the neutrality of the ICPRCP and respect the mandate of the two Committees. Other points raised on Part 2: i) increase the response rate for national periodic reports; ii) develop cases of good practice, especially concerning museums; iii) develop awareness among teachers; iv) strengthen the monitoring of online sales of cultural goods; v) better regulate the use of metal detectors; vi) strengthen the training of experts. Finally, in Part 3: Increasing the visibility of the Convention. Regarding the list of good practices: i) States should maintain their own lists of good practices as a first step; ii) publishing and disseminating good practices; iii) strengthen cooperation between origin and destination States; and iv) exercise prudence in establishing lists of good practices, and work on selected criteria. Another point raised included strengthening the human and financial resources of the Secretariat. 9. The Chairperson introduced the draft decision. Bolivia proposed a new paragraph to strengthen the links between the 1970 Convention and the ICPRCP. Sweden agreed and was open up for the inclusion of many more topics raised in the questionnaire, for example, on the NatLaws database, adding that all these points should be taken into account in the Secretariat’s oral report. The Secretariat suggested a complimentary text with a minor amendment by Sweden. Italy introduced text in paragraph 5 that would enable the Subsidiary Committee to report and make recommendations to the Meeting of the Parties, which Sweden supported albeit Italy should not be permitted to speak at this stage of the proceedings. The Chairperson accepted Italy’s proposal (as an Observer State) on an exceptional basis. Decision 6.SC 6 was declared adopted. Ms Mechtild Rössler shared Sweden’s view that Observers could intervene before and not during the adoption of the draft decision, as per standard procedure in other Committees. The session was duly adjourned.

MONDAY, 29 MAY – MORNING SESSION

CULTURAL HERITAGE AT RISK

Actions in conflict zones

10. The Chairperson opened the session with the four presentations from Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. Arabic interpretation was available for this session. a) The Current Challenges to the Recovery of Iraqi Cultural Property and the role of Iraqi authorities in their preservation

11. Mr Ali Al Taie [Legal Consultant, State Board of Antiquities and Heritage, Iraq] spoke of the challenges faced in the return of Iraqi cultural property and the role of Iraqi authorities in conserving its cultural property. Forty-six cultural sites had been destroyed and damaged by terrorist acts. Artefacts have been sold, and sites, such as Mosul Museum, had been looted. It was noted that legislation in the United States and the European Union consider cultural property acquired on good faith as legal. Yet countries like Germany restrict the sale of illegal trafficking of looted cultural property. In addition, these countries should comply with UN Security Council Resolution 661 (1990)6, UN Security Council Resolution 1483 (2003)7 and UN Security Council Resolution 2199 (2015)8. UN Security Council Resolution 2347 (2017)9 called upon Member States to fight illegal trafficking and the sale of cultural property, particularly from regions of armed conflict. However, despite these resolutions, the Iraqi authorities had not seen a significant number of returns. Iraq called upon Member States to make sure that their seaports, airports and land ports be properly controlled to block any transfer of cultural property, particularly as it was known that Islamists and Da’esh militants use cultural artefacts to finance their activities. Databases needed to be strengthened in order to record the trafficked or sold goods, together with an inventory listing all the artefacts sold, which could be used in evidence before the courts. This would help the Iraqi government to help it recover its property. Member States should uphold the provisions of the 1970 Convention to make sure that the export of a cultural property be accompanied by a certificate of origin and an authorization for export. Furthermore, Iraq sought support in training its officials on restoring and recovering Iraqi cultural property, and the legal aspects of the return. In Iraq, huge areas were still under the control of terrorist groups and were subject to looting, illegal excavations and damage, making illegal trafficking possible, as Iraq was unable to extend its security and surveillance to all areas. 12. Mr Ali Al Taie remarked that Iraqi law prohibited the sale of any cultural property and Article 22 of Iraqi law prohibited the forgery, imitation or production of moulds of cultural artefacts with harsh sentences applied to anyone who exports artefacts outside of Iraq. Iraq wished to receive assistance in preparing an inventory of its museum collections and those objects taken out of Iraq, and required specialized persons to follow the auctions so as to thwart the sale of illegally acquired goods. The authorities established a Red List for cultural heritage at risk in cooperation with ICOM, which is available at various sea, air and land ports. In compliance with para 17 of UN Security Council Resolution 2347 (2017), Iraq had prepared a list of artefacts stolen from the Mosul Museum believed to had been stolen by Da’esh to finance their terrorist activities, as well as a list of the cultural sites that had been damaged or destroyed by Da’esh, which had been circulated to Interpol and foreign embassies in Iraq. Also in compliance with Article 17 of UN Security Council Resolution 2347 (2017), Iraqi authorities had raised awareness among the local communities about the need to protect cultural heritage with meetings and exhibitions. The Antiquities Authorities in Iraq had organized many training courses and meetings for the benefit of police and security forces, the intelligence forces and the armed forces to inform them of good practices with regard to the protection of cultural heritage. A specialized Directorate, part of the Ministry of the Interior, was entrusted with the task of fighting organized crime. Laws should be implemented making it compulsory for auction houses and sales forums to declare the origin of their objects, and the objects should be registered in compliance with the provisions of the 1970 Convention, particularly Articles 6 and 7 related to the certificate of origin. b) Syrian Cultural Heritage at Risk

13. Mr Houmam Saad [Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM), Syria] recalled that Syria ratified The Hague Convention in 1958, the 1970 Convention in 1975,

6 UN SC Resolution 661 (1990) can be consulted here. 7 UN SC Resolution 1483 (2003) can be consulted here. 8 UN SC Resolution 2199 (2015) can be consulted here. 9 UN SC Resolution 2347 (2017) can be consulted here.

and World Heritage Convention in 1972. More recently, a Presidential Law of 2016 was enacted concerning the UNIDROIT Convention. There are around 38 museums in Syria. When the conflict erupted in Syria, a strategy was introduced to evacuate all the museums as quickly as possible, but unfortunately not all museums could be evacuated. For example, the Museum of Maarat al-Nó man and Idleb Museum are still under the control of the terrorist group Al-Nusra Front and other Islamist groups. It had since been discovered that everything had been stolen. The Bosra Museum was also under the control of an Islamist group. The Apamea Museum contained sculptures and well known mosaics, but some of the mosaics and many of the sculptures had been stolen and had transited through Turkey. In Palmyra, from 2011–2016, most of the archaeological sites were out of the State’s control. In 2012, published satellite photos of the Mari site revealed many pit excavations. Fortunately, following the liberation of the site, the museum authorities were able to visit the site, but unfortunately thousands of objects had already been looted. At another site in 2012, liberated in 2018, satellite photos again revealed a large number of excavations pits, but this time the local population had received authorization by Da’esh to loot the site. In the Dura-Europos site, authorities had learned that foreign experts gave instructions and money to local people to search for archaeological objects. When in 2018 the museum experts arrived, it was also unfortunately found to be in a catastrophic state. The Apamea also revealed to have a large number of excavated pits, but it is still under the control of Islamist groups. The same situation exists in Ebla with the disappearance of the Ebla tablets for which the site is well known. In Halabiya-Zenobia on the Euphrates, again large numbers of excavation pits were apparent, especially in the necropolis area. In Palmyra, all the remaining museum statues that could not be evacuated were destroyed, some with explosives. The day after the Syrian army liberated the site, the museum experts arrived to undertake scientific documentation. 14. As a result of this situation, in 2015, the DGAM created a restitution unit that follows the work of every object that leaves Syria and within the country. Through this work, it became known that many of the objects leaving Syria transited to Turkey. This information also came from Syrian refugees in Turkey who were selling Palmyra objects. It was noted that 280 other smaller objects were stolen from the Museum of Palmyra, especially gold. DGAM began to create a database of all the objects stolen and had subsequently contacted Interpol and other international organizations to update their databases with the stolen objects. Unfortunately, vis-à-vis the 1970 Convention, the objects were not registered when they were illegally removed. However, this situation changed with the UN Security Council Resolution that states that any object taken from Iraq or Syria from 2011 must be returned. The borders with Syria are another significant problem with the majority of objects leaving for Turkey. Many of the objects end up in Palestine. Evidence received by DGAM revealed that experts from Turkey and Palestine accompany the terrorists to excavate the pits. There were also other routes to Lebanon, but the Lebanese had assisted in the restitution of 100 Syrian objects in 2013–2014. The main problem, however, was the looting and destruction by explosives, as well as the subjugation of the local people. Syria was taking every opportunity to protect its heritage, which it was able to do in areas that it controlled, but not in areas outside of the State’s control. Mr Saad acknowledged that UNESCO had played an important role in recent years to help and collaborate with Syria, as well as Interpol and the customs authorities. Nevertheless, Syria sought more contact and greater collaboration as it was helpless faced with watching its heritage being destroyed. c) The Challenges and risks that Yemeni cultural heritage faces

15. Mr Mohanad Al Sayani [Chairman of the General Organization of Antiquities and Museums, Yemen] gave his presentation via videoconference. The war in Yemen had been ongoing for four years with many archaeological sites directly or indirectly targeted by airstrikes Other sites had been damaged by the exchange of fire. This situation was exacerbated by illicit excavations and the trafficking of antiquities. As a result of the current situation, Yemen

had fallen victim to looting and trafficked antiquities. The cultural history of ancient Yemen had resulted in the appearance of numerous artefacts from different areas, some of which were found through research and excavation works. Archaeological artefacts were currently displayed in museums in Yemen and abroad, including inscriptions, decorative tools, religious symbols made of clay, and various types of stones, limestone, marble and other materials. However, many Yemeni archaeological sites were subjected to illegal excavations and destruction contrary to the provisions of the Antiquities Law no. 21 of 1994, which stipulates that fixed and movable antiquities are subject to State ownership. Yemen hoped to protect its heritage and the archaeological sites that bore witness to Yemeni creativity, genius and civilization so as to protect the roots of this knowledge. There was thus a need to raise awareness and to promote knowledge about this important heritage. However, the sale and smuggling of Yemeni antiquities abroad during the British colonial rule was carried out by a network of antiquities collectors. Consequently, numerous international museums hold significant archaeological collections from Yemen. The authorities believe that there is a lack of awareness about the importance of the country’s archaeological heritage, which has facilitated the trafficking and smuggling of cultural heritage abroad. It was thus important to promote moral and ethical values to curb the export of objects of historical and cultural value, as well as inculcate the love for Yemeni civilization and heritage. This ancient civilization was currently subjected to mass damage, destruction and vandalism of many of the country’s archaeological sites, including more than 66 monuments. Terrorist organizations such as Ansar al-Shari’a, Da’esh and al-Qaida exploited the situation to systematically target the country’s heritage. Illicit excavation and digging began a long time ago, but it has recently intensified owing to a lack of security, coupled with ‘the search for treasures’. The General Organization of Antiquities and Museums had received notifications about these activities, and had seen the destruction of land tombs and rock tombs dating back to ancient Yemeni kingdoms. The Directorate was trying its best to fight against the destruction by carrying out field visits. It also inflicted the most stringent sentences on those found guilty of trafficking in artefacts to deter them and to prevent the digging and the excavation of important sites. 16. Mr Al Sayani further explained that the country is rich in antiquities and had tried to protect these sites despite urban and population growth. One of the most important measures was the implementation into national law of international Conventions. The country also had to protect its cultural heritage from military onslaught by ensuring that the war in Yemen did not affect its cultural heritage, as well as to make sure that provisions in The Hague Convention, such as Protocol 1, were properly implemented, including the implementation of the 1970 Convention and 1972 Convention. He regretted that the countries participating in the alliance against Yemen had signed and ratified these Conventions and were thus not abiding by their provisions. Nevertheless, cooperation between UNESCO and its partners, particularly Interpol, had helped thwart some smuggling activities. The best example was the seizure of Yemeni artefacts in Geneva by the Swiss authorities. The protection of cultural property faced by a country at war had proven to be ineffective and Yemen believed that the international community should urge contracting States Parties to work during peace time or war to uphold the provisions of these Conventions. It had an obligation to protect cultural property and to make sure that cultural property be recorded and duly protected. d) The current situation of the archaeological heritage in Libya: the efforts of the Directorate of Antiquities to safeguard it

17. Mr Mohamed Fakroun [Director of the International cooperation, Department of Antiquities, Libya] spoke on behalf of Mr Mohammed Faraj, who is in charge of antiquities in Libya. He mentioned the steps undertaken by the Libyan authorities to evacuate the contents of the Great Museums of the City. Following the Arab Spring until 25 October 2011, when Libya was officially liberated, the country underwent a number of major conflicts resulting in the

country being divided between East and West. The three major museums in the country were considered particularly under threat, i.e. the museum in Tripoli, in Sabratha and in Lepta where Leptis Magna is located. Consequently, a special committee was set up to evacuate their contents. Mr Fakroun regretted that it did not receive the support it had expected, which prompted the Libya authorities to conduct a survey to identify Libyan companies that were in a position to help. Thus, under the supervision of the Central Committee, the three museums were evacuated involving teams with specific tasks to keep the location of the storage secret. This work was conducted over a period of four months and the Department was able to evacuate about 75–95 per cent of all the items in the museums. The most significant heritage sites included the Sabratha site and the three museums: the Phoenician Museum, the Classical Museum and the Mosaic Museum, as well as the vast Leptis Magna site with its own Classical Museum. Other significant sites included Ghadames, Cyrene and Acacus, as well as many monuments and museums in Tripoli. Another protected site was in Gargaresh, where there are a number of tombs, as well as the Phoenician Necropolis close to Tripoli, and a number of significant frescoes and paintings. Libya was currently updating its legislation. It was also conducting training workshops; one training workshop in particular in December 2012 trained experts to identify specific pieces. It was also undertaking an ongoing project to digitalize all records of these sites so as to have the information and file cards at hand. A number of files, maps and archives have also been digitalized, as well as rare, antique books and manuscripts. The importance of keeping records of Libyan cultural heritage was highlighted in 2014, and file cards were now available in digital format. There were also a number of restoration efforts on the site of Gargaresh and the Villa Selene, close to Leptis Magna, which had its frescoes and mosaics restored in 2013. A training workshop on the conservation of old manuscripts took place in Tripoli, and in 2014, the Department received a delegation from the European Union that had been working with Libyan authorities. It was known that a number of religious sites were being attacked in Syria and Iraq, and the Department thus worked hard to restore a number of significant religious buildings. Museums had been emptied so as to place all the pieces in a safe place. The Leptis Magna and Tripoli sites were evacuated in this way with the help of experts and the Tourism Police, a specialized police force working for the protection and record-keeping of cultural heritage. 18. Mr Mohamed Fakroun spoke about a workshop on cultural heritage protection organized by foreign experts in Zarzis (Tunisia) in 2015, as it was difficult to bring foreign experts to Libya. Another aspect was awareness-raising so that the local population could be made aware of the value of the local cultural heritage. Even primary school children were taken to these sites. A visit of the Castle of Tripoli raised awareness of the importance and significance of that cultural heritage. Other awareness-raising activities were conducted jointly with institutes of education, schools and high schools. Libya had taken its cue from the efforts made in Iraq and in Syria. It had its own Red List. This was the result of an appeal by the Libyan Department of Antiquities to the international community to help secure and preserve its heritage. Another significant step in awareness-raising involved the publication of a number of leaflets and booklets that drew attention to some highlighted cultural heritage, thereby popularizing these issues among the general population. Despite the number of formalized rules to protect cultural heritage, the Department faces huge challenges. It needs resources, know-how, inventories and record-keeping. Mr Fakroun thanked the Department’s partners, in particular, the Spanish Government who provided expertise and experts who helped conduct research to try and retrieve the stolen items. In addition, there was an agreement with the US State Department that Libyan cultural heritage may not be imported into the US without the express authorization of the Libyan authorities. Similar partnerships also exist with France and Switzerland. 19. Turkey was aware of the illicit trafficking of cultural artefacts in the region but was confident in having taken all possible measures to mitigate this crime. All artefacts regardless of their origin, that are illegally traded and found in Turkey are subject to legal follow-up by State lawyers. Information related to Syrian artefacts registered on Interpol’s database were

translated into Turkish and made available online, and a brochure would be distributed to all refugee camps in Turkey and state museums. The ICOM Red List for Syria was translated into Turkish. As a result of these awareness-raising initiatives, nearly 25,000 Syrian artefacts and 20,000 coins were seized in Turkey. All Syrian artefacts in Turkey would be returned in accordance with the 1970 Convention and considerable financial and human resources had been allocated to facilitate the eventual return of the artefacts. Libya was working hard in building bilateral agreements, such as with the Spanish police (La Brigada) in repatriating some of the objects recently raided by the Spanish police. Libya was also collaborating with the French police, the Italian Carabinieri, and the US Homeland Security. It also signed an agreement with the US Bureau of Cultural Property Protection. Sweden has the use and support of national experts whenever required by its customs and field police officers, and a prompt preliminary opinion on the origin and authenticity of a cultural object is given within 24 hours. Sweden’s experience of this assistance was very positive and was the result of discussions in the context of UN Security Council Resolution 2199, as well as within the framework of Nordic Cooperation. The Syrian Arab Republic was taking stock of the impact of certain political decisions on the issue of returning cultural property and the restitution of illegal appropriation. It was well aware of the role played by multilateral cooperation at both international and regional levels in solving these issues. Nevertheless, the unlawful sanctions against the Syrian Arab Republic dealt a definitive blow to the possibilities of international cooperation with its partners, such as UNESCO, Interpol, the World Customs Organization, the Secretariats of the various conventions, as well as other international protection conventions for the promotion and return of cultural property, in addition to renewed sanctions imposed by the European Union. The Syrian Arab Republic wished to engage in a transparent relationship with the international community and it submitted its periodic quadrennial report of the 1970 Convention in August 2016, as well as its periodic reports for the implementation of the two UN Security Council Resolutions 2199 (2015) and Resolution 2347 (2017). It was recalled that some countries, such as Lebanon and Iraq, had returned illicitly trafficked objects. It agreed that Da’esh and other terrorist groups were responsible for this looting. Moreover, the presence of foreign military forces had proved to favour the terrorist activity. 20. Ms Mechtild Rössler took note of the many synergies between the heritage Conventions with some of presenters referring to World Heritage sites. Ms Rössler clarified that it was now the Cairo Office following the situation in Libya. Many meetings had taken place, and she spoke of the meeting in Tunis organized by the World Heritage Centre. The Secretariat also supported a Libyan mission to Benghazi on the manuscripts. Concerning Syria, the Secretariat cooperated through UNESCO’s Beirut Office with major cooperation in Syria funded by the European Union. However, for all these regions, including Yemen, UNESCO could not operate on the ground without prior security clearance.

EXCHANGES OF GOOD PRACTICES

Examining the existence of archaeological artefacts looted from war zones on the Swedish art and antiquities market

21. Mr Lars Korsell spoke of the soon-to-be published risk analysis report authored by Mr Korsell, Ms Frida Larsdotter Lundgren and Ms Maria Ellior, and financed by the Swedish National Heritage Board, on the possibility of a Swedish market for antiquities looted from conflict and war zones. For the last 10–15 years, Sweden has tried to stop the different kinds of cultural heritage crimes. The first step was a Nordic survey, followed by a study of thefts from different churches in Sweden, and another report covering major cases of illegal trafficking in Sweden of international importance. Sweden was taking responsibility as a result of the different UN Resolutions and the global issue of financing terror. Ms Frida Larsdotter explained that the Cultural Heritage Unit of the Swedish Police sought to do something about the destruction and looting of cultural heritage and had thus developed a

method of risk analysis by ascertaining the extent of the market for cultural objects in Sweden, taking into consideration ‘risk object’ types, i.e. an object selected from focused looting zones that was at risk of archaeological looting. The study was conducted in 2017, and by collecting enough data, one could assess the size of the market for these objects, where the market was present, and the objects represented so as to determine the active measures. The conflict zones chosen were based on four concurrent criteria, and as a result, five countries were selected, including Iraq and Syria. From the ICOM Lists, the kinds of objects smuggled from certain countries could be determined. Market data, such as market catalogues and online photos and descriptions by auction houses helped assess the potential market, as well as field study carried out in art galleries and antique shops. There was the problem that the description of an object – whether from an internet auction, an established auction house or gallery – might not always be accurate. The Swedish Museums of World Culture cooperated in the study to determine the accuracy of descriptions of registered ‘risk objects’. The auction search engine also helped compile a very detailed list of any object and term associated with the risk objects sought. During this six-month period study, 1,642 objects classed as ‘risk objects’ were found and registered. In total, the objects had an estimated starting value of €116,000, which was marginal compared to other much larger European markets. The market study found that 81.2 per cent of all risk objects were found on Sweden’s ‘eBay-style’ sites. This was both the main concern and the main conclusion drawn. Ms Maria Ellior explained that this area of work had received increased priority within the Swedish Police. Through research, it was able to obtain a general picture of the situation in Sweden regarding these objects. Even after this research, and with no indication of large volumes of archaeological objects coming onto the open market in Sweden, the unit could still not exclude that some of these objects might come to Sweden as a funding source for terrorism. The Swedish Police recently started a cooperation between the Prosecution Authority, the Migration Board and the Swedish Security Service so as to get a broader perspective of the problem. Also, objects related to the armed conflict in Syria and Iraq, could be investigated as war crimes, which is more severely punished.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION WITH PARTNERS

Latest developments and initiatives a) Interpol

22. Mr Corrado Catesi explained that in 2017 Interpol undertook an analysis to better understand the issues related to the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural property. A 35-page questionnaire was thus sent to all Member States to understand their activities at the national level, and 58 countries out of 192 responded with police information. Interpol focused on where the illicit trade of cultural property takes place, and to have an idea about the age and education of the perpetrators, the type of cultural property of main interest for organized crime, and information about forgeries. From 2013 to 2016, it was noted that there were at least 6,000 to 7,000 offences committed in Europe, with 5 in Africa, and 74– 310 for the Americas. Mr Catesi spoke about Operation Latina, a global operation jointly organized by Interpol and WCO that involved 81 Member States. From 20–30 November 2017, Operation Pandora II was carried out with a special focus on Europe, and out of the 41,000 objects seized worldwide more than half were seized in Europe. Interpol observed that there is a low level of enforcement, a lack of specialized police units, and a lack of national databases specifically dedicated to this issue. Interpol sought to improve the situation and a brochure10 on the advantages of building a specialized police unit was made available on Interpol’s website. From August 2017, a series of workshops focusing on the issue of law enforcement was conducted. The first workshop was held in Brazil, and the last

10 The Interpol brochure Creating a National Cultural Heritage Unit can be downloaded here.

workshop in 2018 would be held in Bratislava (Slovakia). The workshops are short, lasting one-and-a-half days. A workshop in Albania in 2017 discussed the necessity of reinforcing the specialized police unit. Following a workshop in the Czech Republic, it was decided to centralize information obtained from the regions to the national level. Macedonia initiated a discussion at the national level to determine whether it was necessary to build a specialized unit. In 2019, Interpol would particularly focus in Asia where 13 workshops had been planned. In addition, a workshop would be held in South Africa focusing on five of the SARPCCO11 Member States. A regional workshop was held in Swaziland in August 2017 for all 15 SARPCCO Members States focused mainly on the situation of law enforcement in the region. In September 2017, a first Conference on the Protection of Underwater Heritage12 was held with UNESCO in Lyons, France. Interpol always accepts UNESCO invitations to workshops where it can bring its expertise. It had attended the ministerial level regional meeting held in Mauritius in July 201713. In 2016, a high-level meeting with the former Director-General of UNESCO and the different Directors-General of WCO, ICOM, ICOMOS took place to determine how to follow-up with the UN Security Council Resolution 2199 (2015). A short 2-minute film was projected. 23. Interpol was also working on the follow-up to the UN Security Council Resolutions 2199 (2015) and 2347 (2017). In 2017, Interpol was present in Italy for the two G7 meetings, and it followed up on the UN Resolutions in all its workshops. In December 2017, a conference was held in UNESCO Beirut with all the border countries of Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Interpol published the second special poster dedicated to the major theft at Raqqa Museum. Finally, in April 2018, Interpol organized the first regional conference, the ‘Americas Conference on Illicit Trafficking in Stolen Cultural Property’14 to draw attention to the issue of seized objects in South America, and more specifically in Uruguay where in June 2017 more than 300 objects had been seized; it was time to consider South America as both a destination region and a source region. In addition, during Operation Athena, more than 1,200 objects coming from China through the United States and into Argentina were seized in Buenos Aires. Interpol had also produced two posters of the most wanted objects of art in June and December [2017], and was close to publishing the first poster for 2018. Interpol would soon go live with its updated version of the Stolen Works of Art Database, after which it would create a mobile app to allow access to the database from mobile devices. A national database template would also be made available for free to all Interpol Member countries in early 2019, which would help establish national level database to collect data on stolen objects of art. The second release would enable the collection of data on forgeries. A section would be dedicated to illicit excavation, and a fourth section dedicated to the destruction of cultural heritage. Member States would thus be able to set up a national Stolen Works of Art Database through this template to start collecting data on stolen works of art. This national database would be managed entirely independently by the country concerned with a direct link to Interpol’s Stolen Works of Art Database. b) World Customs Organization (WCO)

24. Ms Mariya Polner remarked that the UN Security Council Resolution 2347 (2017) was supported by a number of activities by the WCO since March 2017. Resolution 2347 also underlined the need to look closely at trafficking from the supply chain perspective. There was much discussion on source countries receiving protection, but customs also faced fragile borders in source countries where customs police and security services cannot

11 Formed in Zimbabwe in 1995, the Southern African Regional Police Chiefs Co-operation Organisation (SARPCCO) is the primary force in Southern Africa for the prevention and fighting of cross-border crime. Refer here for more information. 12 Read more about the Conference on the Protection of Underwater Heritage here. 13 Read more about the ’Regional conference and ministerial roundtable to strengthen synergies for the protection of cultural heritage in Eastern Africa and the adjacent Indian Ocean Islands’ here. 14 Read more on the conference here.

physically control any type of commodity, let alone cultural objects. Latest developments in the European Union on adopting an import regulation will affect cultural objects coming from third countries in the same way as destination countries. So, What is the role of customs in this new paradigm? It was noted that there is no training curriculum for customs administrations in this area, and thus WCO undertook to develop and deploy the customs training curriculum, specifically for the MENA15 region. Two regional workshops, Phase I and Phase II, were conducted to understand the reality on the ground, specifically with regard to conflict zones. The curriculum would then be tailored to deploy the tools that frontline customs officers could use in their work on a daily basis. Ideally this would become an eLearning curriculum. In addition, any person from the national customs administration could receive this form of eTraining. With regard to the deployed emergency actions in the MENA region and Western Central Africa, Phase I was the Gap Analysis Regional Workshop where customs administrations were brought together to discuss the security situation and concerns on the ground. Based on this information, WCO delivered tailor- made hands-on training. The Phase I Workshop was delivered in Tunisia in April 2017, and where it delivered hands-on training for the MENA region in Beirut in September 2017. The WCO then followed a similar model in Western Central Africa, whose Gap Analysis Training was completed in May 2018 in Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso. In this case, 15 customs administrations from Western Central Africa (from Mali to Nigeria) got together to discuss the issues. The 100-page training curriculum was available but was law enforcement sensitive and therefore could not be shared beyond the law enforcement community. The WCO had already worked on standardizing the material so that trainees could become trainers who would then go on to train and disseminate this knowledge to other customs officers in the country. 25. The global Operation Athena ran in autumn 2017 and Ms Polner showed some photos of the successful Gap Analysis Workshop held in April 2017 in Tunisia where 13 customs administrations, including representatives of countries under conflict in the MENA region were present, resulting in a set of recommendations. Regional training was planned in Lebanon in September 2018, and 14 countries sought hands-on training to deliver national or sub-regional training to their customs officers. This training was delivered within the WCO-UNODC Container Control Programme. WCO was also able to deliver national training for frontline customs, police and security officers working in Port Control Units. In Jordan this training took place in February 2018 with very concrete outcomes. Another part of the training involved field visits to inspect the cargo facility of airports. The next phase of training would take place in the seaport of Aqaba in June 2018. The workshop in Western Central Africa was a Gap Analysis brainstorming exercise. In Operation Athena, 81 countries had nominated points of contact. Europe was very active for obvious reasons, but participation by region was very representative. Europe was responsible for the majority of seizures. The Americas region was also very active, as well as the MENA regions, Asia and Africa. Examples of seizures ranged from paleontological objects to works of arts, coins and musical instruments, and other objects.16 Throughout the Operation, 35 cases were registered by reporting countries and customs over the 10-day period. In the end, there were 35 seizures registered from more than 10 countries with 41,000 objects seized, of which almost 10,000 objects were seized by customs. Unsurprisingly, archaeological objects were dominant in this operation, particularly due to the huge seizure of more than 20,000 objects by Spain’s Guardia Civil. There were only 3,000 archaeological objects and the second largest commodity was coins. Regarding the secure communications platform ARCHEO17, there were now more than 220 users in more than 90 countries, with plans to enhance the ARCHEO network and its capabilities. Ms Polner also spoke about the WCO Illicit Trade Report18 with a section dealing with statistics on the seizures of cultural objects.

15 MENA – Middle East North Africa. 16 Read more about Operation Athena here. 17 Read more about Archeo here. 18 Download the Illict Trade Reports here.

This type of analytics on the flows of illicit goods would not be possible without data on seizures. In this case, 13 countries shared their seizure reports with the WCO. In the 2017 report, there was a specific focus on the MENA region. WCO was also conducting field missions and undertaking research in the field. WCO was also finalizing the training curriculum and planning regional hands-on training in autumn 2018. There would be no planned global operation this year. c) Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property (Council of Europe) Mr Carlo Chiaromonte introduced the Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property, a new instrument drawn up in 2016 as part of the Council of Europe, an organization that brought together 47 Member States, mostly European States. It is a criminal law Convention with a number of provisions that criminalizes certain behaviours related to cultural property with a range of measures that sanction unlawful conduct. Perhaps more importantly, it contains provisions aimed at improving and facilitating cooperation between States Parties in the investigation and prosecution of persons committing offenses against cultural property. The Council of Europe has a tradition of combating organized crime and terrorism, and it worked closely with other international organizations before it embarked on the elaboration of this new international Convention. The aim was to bridge any gaps in the domain of cultural property in other international instruments, such as the 1970 Convention and UNIDROIT Convention, and to provide more specific and detailed provisions on precise criminal acts. Mr Chiaromonte invited the States Parties present to accede to this Convention, which was open to Member States of the Council of Europe, but also to any non-Member State at the global level. Moreover, achieving effective results in this field could not be achieved by limiting action to certain geographic regions, and hence the cooperation of all countries in the world was considered crucial. Mr Chiaromonte invited the States Parties to visit the Council of Europe website.19 It was noted that Cyprus was the sole country to have ratified the Convention. However, around five signatures were needed from other Member States in order for the Convention to enter into force. d) International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT)

26. Ms Marina Schneider recalled that this Convention reinforced the 1970 Convention’s strong points and weaknesses. It has two specific procedures for the restitution of stolen cultural property and the return of illegally exported property. Recent training sessions with UNIDROIT’s partners revealed the importance for States to understand the contribution of the UNIDROIT Convention with regard to the 1970 Convention. The Convention sets deadlines to bring about proceedings for restitution and it tackles the extremely thorny issue of good faith by placing the burden of proof on the possessor who must prove that due diligence was exercised. The UNIDROIT Convention also concerned clandestine archaeological excavations, which were partially covered by the 1970 Convention, but with specific provisions in the 1995 Convention with a model law establishing State ownership. However, neither instrument applied retroactively; only from the moment the instrument entered into force by the signatory country. The major difference between the two Conventions was that the 1970 Convention required national legislation for its implementation whereas the UNIDROIT Convention did not. The UNIDROIT Convention has 43 States Parties, though not all had entered into force. Since the last Committee session, six States had joined the Convention. Other States had completed their ratification and accession procedures and UNIDROIT was waiting for the deposit of these instruments. Other States currently in the process of accession were States that had signed the Convention but had not ratified it. It was noted that this Convention exercised and exerted a very strong influence, notably in European law. The European Directive of 2014 have all been included in the UNIDROIT Convention and, in particular, the reversal of the burden of

19 Council of Europe Convention on Offenses relating to Cultural Property: http://www.coe.int

proof on the issue of good faith. It also has an influence on the national laws of States, even though in some countries there is a strong lobby from the market against the Convention. It was observed that the accelerated rate of ratifications was largely due to the number of training sessions on legislation. Moreover, it was incumbent on UNDROIT to participate in all the legal aspects of the Conventions and UN General Assembly Resolutions on returns and restitutions, and more recently the UN Security Council Resolutions. Synergy was thus fundamental. The support of the Secretariat and UNESCO field offices was absolutely essential in the organization of seminars and follow-up. UNIDROIT had also established collaboration with the armed forces, particularly since the UN Security Council Resolutions, as armed forces were increasingly involved in the protection of heritage. In particular, the Italian Carabinieri, as well as the training of the Blue Helmets of culture. In terms of visibility, UNIDROIT had created a new portal for its website to facilitate navigation, and it was increasingly present on social media such as Facebook and Twitter.20 Following the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2199, an informal working group was established with UNESCO and the Permanent Missions of Cyprus and Italy, which met every year, and was nurtured by the Academic Project21. The Academic Project is an online platform on which information is gathered on the Convention. In addition, courses are available online whose aim is to develop the key issues raised by the Convention. A blackboard presented recent developments, and partnerships had been established since its launch at the beginning of 2017, with partners joining in their personal and institutional capacity to develop projects.

TUESDAY, 29 MAY 2018, AFTERNOON SESSION

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION WITH PARTNERS

Latest developments and initiatives e) United Nations Security Council Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team (UNSMT)

27. Mr Angelo Felicetti explained that the Monitoring Team consists of 10 international experts supported by UN staff members. It advises 2 of the 14 current Sanctions Committees of the Security Council: the 1267 Sanctions Committee, also known as the ISIL and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee, and the 1988 Sanctions Committee, focusing on insurgency in Afghanistan. The mandates of these two Sanction Committees were passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which are binding for Member States. The mandate of the Monitoring Team covers the global assessment of the trade posted by ISIL, Al-Qaida, Taliban and affiliates worldwide. It also monitors the three sanctions: i) the global assets freeze; ii) the global travel ban; and iii) the global arms embargo. Finally, it covers the management of the Sanctions List of individual entities related to ISIL, Al-Qaida, Taliban and affiliates. Since 2014, the Monitoring Team with its partners continuously monitors the looting and smuggling of antiquities by ISIL in the Syrian Arab Republic. In addition, the Monitoring Team engages with a wide range of private sector stakeholders, such as international auction houses. Based on this data, the Monitoring Team identified a range of current challenges in curbing the ability of ISIL and other terrorist groups to generate assets through the illicit trade in stolen and looted artefacts. During the course of 2015 and 2016, the Monitoring Team developed a range of recommendations relevant both for Member States and private sector stakeholders in the antiquities mass market, and followed three basic principles: documentation, counter mechanisms, and private sector procedures, as reflected in paragraph 17 of Resolution 2347. On the first principle on raising awareness and documentation, Resolution 2347 analysed the threat of looting and smuggling

20 Access the UNIDROIT website here, Facebook here and Twitter here. 21 Read more about the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention Academic Project here.

antiquities in conflict zones as an issue of financing terrorism at the highest political level. The Resolution calls upon all Member States to create educational programmes to raise public awareness on the issue, as well as inventory lists of cultural objects. The Security Council calls upon Member States to make use of instruments that allow for the sharing of information, including Interpol’s Database of Stolen Works of Art, the WCO ARCHEO platform and the UNODC Sherloc22 portal. On the second principle on counter mechanisms, the flow of any type of goods depends on clear and precise export and import regulations and the accompanying documentation. Thus, the certification of provenance ensures that looted artefacts cannot easily cross international borders. However, only a few Member States currently have specialized customs or law enforcement agents or units that can detect and conduct investigations focusing on stolen or looted antiquities. In 2016, the Monitoring Team identified an administrative change of the WCO Harmonized System and the nomenclature and classifications of goods as one potential measure. Chapter 9723 of the nomenclature is divided into several general headings that addresses antiquities, sculptures, engravings, prints and lithographs, coins and other collectors’ pieces of historical, ecological and ethnographic interest. 28. In order to encourage the sharing of experience, best practices and information between the various authorities, Resolution 2347 calls upon Member States to establish procedures and, where appropriate, databases that collect information on criminal activities related to looted and smuggled cultural objects. This measure aims to strengthen the investigative ability of relevant authorities in potential source, transit and market countries for looted antiquities. On the third principle on private sector procedures, collectors, art dealers, auction houses and websites can act as the last obstacle in the sale of artefacts looted by terrorist organizations. An agreed standard of provenance, common rules of compliance, due diligence and know-your-customer procedures would enable market participants to better identify potential problematic antiquities, and allow customs and law enforcement investigators to gain easier access to data. The creation of systematic databases containing this information would enable market participants to secure information regarding the identity of objects. In turn, this would allow them to vet the antiquities they encounter. Prior to the passing of the Resolution, some Member States and international organizations had already begun to tighten their national legislation, adjust administrative procedures in freeport zones, as well as increase public awareness on the issue of antiquities smuggling. In this regard, South America has become a new destination area for antiquities, including items illegally removed from Syria, Iraq and neighbouring countries. However, due to the lack of documentation of existing cultural artefacts, it is difficult for Member States to identify whether the seized artefacts were looted in these conflict zones or that the seized artefacts fall under this moratorium. Finally, linking the seized artefacts with illegal trade by terrorist organizations requires long-term investigations. In this regard, items in Syrian and Iraqi museums were generally marked with a registration number in indelible ink, which could be useful identifiers for stolen items. Consequently, the moratorium team recommended that Member States at risk should compile lists of numbers from museum catalogues and exchange these numbers with Member States bordering the conflict zones, as well as potential destination countries. As the profit margin for looted antiquities at the first point of sale near the conflict zones is potentially small, an increase in documentation and cultural heritage protection could help inhibit this illicit trade. Measures such as these in transit and potential market countries should result in the diminution of the profit margin and a reduction in the commercial viability of looting. Countering looting and the flow of cultural artefacts out of conflict zones is a necessary struggle to limit the large-scale destruction of cultural heritage, as well as prevent terrorist organizations from developing new ways to finance their activities.

22 Read more about the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Sherloc portal here. 23 Read more about the classifications of Chapter 27 here.

f) European Commission

29. Ms Chiara Bellani remarked that customs and trade falls under the full competence of the European Union and hence why the EC was working on a regulation for the import of cultural goods. This was an outcome of the Resolutions of the European Parliament in 2015 on the action plan to strengthen the fight against terrorist financing, and the joint communication in 2016 towards a new strategy for international cultural relations. There were four aspects. The first aspect related to the completion of the legal framework of the EU. There were already regulations and directives on the export of cultural goods, requiring an authorization. There was also a directive on the return of cultural goods, but not yet a regulation on the import of cultural goods, which aims to control the import and storage in the EU of cultural goods coming from third countries. A common definition was inspired both from the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention and UNESCO’s 1970 Convention, i.e. that it is the source country that decides whether a good has been illegally trafficked or not. The proposed age threshold of the object for the application of the regulation is 250 years or older. This proposal24 was now pending a decision by the European Parliament and the European Council. An import licence would thus have to be obtained from an authority in the Member State where it transited. For all other goods, a signed self-declaration accompanied by an object ID would suffice. The second aspect related to [illicit] trade within the EU. The EU enjoys excellent cooperation with the Secretariat of the 1970 Convention and it was working on a pilot project to fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural goods. The project which has two components: a capacity-building workshop held in March 2018, and a training component for lawyers and law enforcement and customs officers of EU Member States. The Unit was also undertaking a survey on improving knowledge of illicit trade and the technologies available to curb such trade. The fourth aspect related to international cooperation and its importance. Since the presidencies of Malta and Estonia, the Friends of the Presidency group works on the strategic approach to international cultural relations, while the Bulgarian presidency focuses on cultural heritage. The Unit carries out many activities and projects to support affected countries. For example, the capacity-building workshop in Brussels in 30–31 May 2018 in collaboration with UNESCO, attended by the Assistant Director-General of Culture of UNESCO. Meanwhile, the European Year of Cultural Heritage 201825 aims to raise awareness on the protection of cultural heritage with many activities taking place around the world. All the material was available online in 24 languages. The latest policy development was the New European Agenda for Culture,26 which aims to present an Action Plan for Cultural Heritage. European Member States would be asked to present similar plans at national level. 30. Ms Asja Prohic-Doric spoke of the pilot project to train the judiciary and law enforcement agencies of EU Member States to combat the illicit trafficking of cultural property. The training manual would include the principle reference texts at the international and EU level, a description of the different investigative techniques, the principles of due diligence, as well as the available practical tools and databases, illustrated by case studies. The second phase of the project involves testing the manual during a training workshop in November 2018 at UNESCO Headquarters. The Secretariat thus sought from the Permanent Delegations of the 28 countries concerned, two focal points per country: one representing the law authorities, and the other the police. To date, six responses had been received. She sought more general contact names, as the aim of this project was above all to raise awareness and train the largest number of representatives of the judiciary and police forces across Europe. The persons invited would subsequently disseminate the results of the November training at the level of their respective countries. g) International Council of Museums (ICOM)

24 Read more about the EC proposal here. 25 Read more about the European Year of Cultural Heritage here. 26 Read more about the New European Agenda for Culture here.

31. Ms Sophie Delepierre emphasized the special role of ICOM, an NGO under French law with international scope, and created by museum professionals in 1946. ICOM relies on this independent network of 40,000 members worldwide, 120 national committees and 30 national committees, six regional alliances, and around 20 affiliated organizations to implement its concrete activities. These activities revolve around three important areas: i) establishing professional and ethical standards for museum activities; ii) recommending missions, building skills and knowledge development; and iii) raising public awareness. Museum professionals have been preoccupied with the protection of heritage and the circulation of cultural property since the 1960s. ICOM is thus used both a forum and catalyst for their international action in the protection of cultural objects. Among the tools developed and that continue to bear fruit is the 1986 ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums;27 a combination of professional standards and ethical issues related to the profession, and a minimum standard for museums. With regard to the principle of acquisition, the museum should not only consider the conservation, valorization and presentation of collections to the public, but also take into consideration the management of these collections, such as ownership and ensuring that objects have been legally acquired. Due diligence is another concept integrated into the current Code. Every new ICOM membership constitutes acceptance of this Code of Ethics and its principles. The minimum standards developed in the Code already provides a solid basis for the international discussions on museums. Finally, in countries where national legislation or regulations does not exist in this field, the Code of Ethics becomes an interesting base on which to work. 32. Capacity-building or training activities are at the heart of ICOM’s actions, such as methods of restoration, accessibility to people with reduced mobility or disability, targeting young audiences, or measures of security taken in cases of emergency. Occasionally ICOM is invited by a partner organization to intervene in specific training workshops on the fight against illicit trafficking in cultural property. ICOM also places special emphasis on the importance of inventories and it promotes practical tools to help museums in this regard. One example is the use of Object ID, which is an international standard for describing works of art and antiquities that also facilitates international communication. Workshops also recall the good practices of the Code of Ethics and the Red Lists. With the support of the US State Department, these lists are developed in cooperation with experts from the global museum community. They are based on criteria relating to the object’s risk of theft, looting and destruction, to the demand on the market. It is important to note that the objects on these lists have not been stolen. They provide a practical tool to draw the attention of the police and customs officials to certain types of objects that are likely to be transported, thereby facilitating their identification. These Lists are also used by museums, auction houses, art dealers and collectors. There are now 17 such lists, covering 40 countries. The latest is the Emergency Red List of Cultural Objects at Risk in Yemen28. This tool is constantly evolving, and the objects differ from one List to another. For this reason, ICOM was studying the possibility of upgrading this list to an online research tool that would be easy and quick to access, and available in multilingual format across all types of devices and for free. 33. India reiterated that the Convention had two aspects: the historical aspect and the current situation. The historic aspect was particularly important for India, given the removal of its cultural property to museums in the United Kingdom during the colonial era; a trend that continues today in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. One way to approach the issue was to prevent the theft of objects leaving the country, and the second was the return of the property. Moreover, countries could be divided into three categories: i) the ones whose property was being taken; ii) countries that were mainly buyers; and iii) countries where both buying and selling takes place. In this way, every country would be very differently placed within the matrix and the Convention should thus address the issues faced by each country within this

27 Download a copy of the Code of Ethics for Museums here. 28 Download the Emergency Red List of Cultural Objects at Risk in Yemen here.

matrix. Unfortunately, the most vulnerable countries and those most at risk were the countries that were the least equipped to deal with the problem. In addition, developing countries had very different priorities. However, UNESCO was making great efforts in social media in this regard, and UNESCO should use every opportunity to make a regular talking point out of this issue. India, as a very old civilization, has an oral tradition, and unfortunately knowledge was not passed in written form as much as in oral form. In this context, new ways of thinking could consider cultural adaptation that might be more suited to countries that do not have a tradition of documenting or recording their heritage. France recalled its commitment towards the protection of cultural heritage and the fight against trafficking. Together with the United Arab Emirates, it had initiated the Abu Dhabi International Conference on Safeguarding Endangered Heritage29 and the creation of the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage in Conflict Areas (the ALIPH Foundation). It fully supported the draft regulation on the import of cultural goods into the European Union, and it contributed to the capacity-building workshop in Brussels in May 2018 on the possibilities of improving the protection of cultural heritage in danger. Moreover, numerous training sessions and workshops were organized in France, as well as abroad for heritage professionals. France had also strengthened its national legal framework on freedom and creation, and architecture and heritage. In October 2017, France handed over eight archaeological objects seized by French customs to Egyptian authorities. 34. Japan appreciated the research by the Swedish experts and wished to know more about the four specific criteria used in the definition of a risk object. The experts had left, but the Swedish delegation would ensure that the experts respond to the question by email. The Republic of Korea commended Interpol on the usefulness of the Works of Art Database that registered cultural properties and standardized the framework of Object ID. It noted that the database was only accessible to law enforcement agencies and other authorized users, whereas some data had open access. It therefore wished to know whether the entire Stolen Works of Art Database could be made accessible to all. It was noted that Mr Corrado Catesi had left the meeting but Interpol would follow-up. Cyprus proposed that the Secretariat in future provide the presentations prior to the meeting so as to invite more lively exchanges and discussion. The Chairperson fully concurred and he suggested that the Bureau discuss this point when it prepares for the next session. Greece spoke of a number of Greek experts (technicians, archaeologists, conservators) who were at hand to help any country looking for information or advice. Armenia supported the remarks by Cyprus for a revised agenda at the next meeting. It also suggested that the experts representing their organizations remain in the room during the discussions. Concerning export and import regulations, Germany noted that the adoption of a new EU import regulation could help the 28 Member States that were Parties to the 1970 Convention. However, export regulations were often violated in cases of illicit trafficking. Red Lists also raised awareness, and UNESCO already had a very useful tool, the NatLaw Database, which required funding. Germany called upon States Parties to submit their export laws, as this information was crucial. People caught trafficking cultural property could only be convicted in court if this information was readily available. The Secretariat thanked all those who had shared comments and suggestions. a) The El-Manatí case: restituting Mexican archaeological artefacts – a precedent in Germany

35. Mexico presented a recent successful case of restitution in Germany, which was of major importance because of the rare nature of the restituted artefacts and for the innovative court ruling in Germany. After a legal battle of almost a decade, the two objects were presented to the public by the Mexican Ambassador to Germany. The two artefacts originated from the site of El Manatí in Veracruz, Mexico, and were looted in 1988. They are among the oldest archaeological artefacts preserved in Mesoamerica made of wood. The collection of

29 Read more about the Conference here.

pre-Colombian artefacts was gathered by a Costa Rican citizen, Mr Leonardo Patterson. In 1997, the objects of the entire collection (of about 1,500 object lots) were exhibited in Santiago de Compostela in Spain, and was afterwards transferred to Germany in 2008. Once in Germany, 1,029 objects were found to be of Mexican origin. In 2010, 691 were identified as authentic by Mexican experts. However, among the non-authentic objects, a stone carving was falsely attributed as an original Olmec colossal head and consequently, Mr Patterson was sentenced to prison for one year and three months, which was suspended to probation. With regard to the legal history, in 2008 – when the objects arrived in Germany – the Mexican authorities tried unsuccessfully to rapatriate the objects. In 2010, Mexico claimed a lawsuit against the German Federal State of Bavaria (where the objects were located) based on the newly enforced law or Act for the Restitution of Cultural Goods. The lawsuit took almost two years and was unfruitful. Mexico was forced to start a civil action for restitution. But in 2012, in order to maintain the ongoing case, Mexico had to file an injunction on civil matters for the seizure of the 691 objects that had been identified by the Mexican archaeologists. This was granted by the court as a preliminary measure. The problem was the impossibility for Mexico to prove the provenance of each and every object, as well as the defendant’s bad faith related to the objects in question, as stated in German civil law. However, the revocation of a seizure order did not represent a verdict in favour of the defendant. The court had not legitimated his collection. So in 2015, the court restituted the objects. After intense investigations, it was established that the defendant was acting in bad faith in trafficking the two objects. On the conclusion of this case, the collection was moved to France in 2017, a few days before the new cultural heritage legislation in Germany entered into force. It was known that the seller was still trying to sell the objects in France. However, restitution remains difficult when objects have little or no provenance information. This case therefore highlighted the difficulties encountered with issues such as good faith and the burden of proof. In this case, it was the first time that a German court had ruled positively on the application of Mexican law. b) A good practice example of restitution: Venezuela-Costa Rica

36. In December 2017, Venezuela repatriated more than 190 indigenous pieces of pre- Columbian art to Costa Rica, which was seen as an important event in the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural property in the Latin American region. The pieces comprised a large collection of pre-Columbian art of Costa Rican origin dating back approximately to 1000 and 1500 BCE, which were being brought to the United States to be auctioned. This result came about thanks to the commitment of the Venezuelan State to the promotion, protection and safeguarding of tangible and intangible cultural heritage in accordance with Article 99 of its Constitution and other normative instruments directly related to the 1970 UNESCO Convention. During 2010–2017, Venezuelan institutions conducted a research process to identify cultural property seized from owners who intended to transport them to the United States. This case was in addition to the recovery of the wreck of the Savannah, the repatriation of the ‘Odalisque in Red Pants’ by Henri Matisse from the United States, as well as the measures adopted to suspend the auction in Paris of a piece of the banner of the conquistador Francisco Pizarro, among others. Gratitude was expressed to the authorities of Costa Rica for the excellent cooperation. The President of the Institute of Cultural Heritage, in a video presentation, remarked on the cooperation between the authorities of Venezuela and Costa Rica in the repatriation of these objects. During recent years, a lot of training had been conducted on raising awareness among customs authorities and other Venezuelan authorities to train them on illegal trafficking and international laws. It was in fact a customs police officer who had undertaken the training who had discovered this collection. It was Costa Rica’s most important pre-Columbian art collection in the country. c) Return of Vrubel’s stolen artwork

37. Armenia presented a successful case of good practice and international cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Armenia. In 1995, ‘The Demon and the Angel with Tamara’s Soul’ by famed Russian artist, Mikhail Vrubel, was stolen from the Museum of Russian Art of Armenia. In March 2017, during the official meeting of the presidents of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Armenia, it was announced that they would work together to find the masterpiece, which happened as a result of investigative measures carried out jointly by law enforcement officers of the two countries. In November 2017, in the Vrubel Hall of the State Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin handed the work to his Armenian counterpart, President Serzh Sargsyan after some masterful restoration work. Vrubel’s priceless work was also of historical interest as it was created to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the death of the Russian poet, Mikhail Lermontov. Visitors of the exhibition now have a rare opportunity to not only see the restored work, but also a chronicle of the theft and its return. 38. The Russian Federation spoke of its commitment to the 1970 Convention, one of the most efficient tools at States’ disposal to combat the illicit trafficking of cultural property. The landmark event between Russia and Armenia with the return of the Vrubel painting was an affirmation of this commitment and served as an example of trust and good faith between nations. Germany spoke of how it was very difficult to place legal evidence in multi-layer cases of criminal investigations to prove the origin of cultural objects. Nevertheless, it was successful in the Mexican case, even though the entire collection was now in France. Germany was happy to share its information on Mr Patterson with the French authorities to help put an end to the illicit trafficking of those objects.

PROVISIONAL AGENDA, DATE AND PLACE FOR THE SEVENTH SESSION OF THE SUBSIDIARY COMMITTEE

39. The Chairperson recalled the priority topics selected by the Bureau: i) the sensitization of the judiciary and youth; ii) due diligence; and iii) cooperation with the art market. Committee Members were invited to send their proposals or suggestions to the Secretariat for the subsequent priority topics. The Bureau would also work on ensuring more debate and less time for presentations for the next session. The recommended dates of the next session were between 22–24 May; the same week as the Fifth Meeting of the States Parties on the 20 and 21 May. Sweden suggested a two-day meeting with one presentation made per region to allow for a strategic debate with the Committee, with presentations distributed before. The Secretariat concurred that the length of the meeting was determined by Members of the Subsidiary Committee. Sweden remarked that as the Meeting of the States Parties would take place on the same week, an efficient two-day Committee meeting would save time and money. Cyprus and Honduras concurred with the pertinence of a 2-day meeting. The Chairperson announced the Subsidiary Committee meeting would be held from 22 to 23 May and declared Decision 6.SC 10 adopted.

ORAL REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR

40. Presenting a summary of the work of the Subsidiary Committee over the last two days, the Rapporteur recalled the outcomes of the Fifth Subsidiary Committee reported by the Rapporteur, Ms Zeynep Boz, in which she mentioned the strengthened cooperation with partners, namely Interpol, the WCO and ICOM. She recalled the successful case of Operation Pandora led by Interpol, and the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, namely Resolution 2199 (2015) and Resolution 2347 (2017). Ms Boz also reported on the cooperation with UNITWIN, and with experts for renewed perspectives on the role of education in the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural property. The Secretariat had recalled the activities to increase the Convention’s efficiency, including the questionnaire sent to States Parties. Capacity-building activities and the training sessions conducted

and/or coordinated by the Secretariat were also recalled. Sweden spoke about the need to encourage [financial] contributions. Regarding the reflections on the questionnaire on the efficiency, visibility and promotion of the Convention, Committee Members mentioned the need to include the recommendations in the [Secretariat’s] subsequent reporting. On the second day, presentations were made by experts from Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya regarding the challenges faced in the destruction of heritage and illicit trafficking in the MENA region. Sweden also shared positive experiences concerning national cooperation with police forces. The 1970 Convention’s main partners, Interpol, WCO, the Council of Europe, UNIDROIT, ICOM, UNSMT and the European Union assessed the situation globally and reported on their activities. The Council of Europe also presented its report regarding the Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property, calling upon States to ratify this instrument widely. States Parties expressed their wish that the next session of the Subsidiary Committee be more interactive. Mexico, Venezuela and Armenia also shared some examples of good practices.

CLOSURE OF THE SIXTH SESSION

41. Ms Mechtild Rössler thanked the Chairperson for his eloquent chairing of the meeting and the Rapporteur who summarized the work well. She also thanked the Members of the Subsidiary Committee, the States Parties for their contributions, and the presenters, including colleagues from UNESCO’s partner organizations. Ms Rössler also thanked her team and everyone working behind the scenes. The Chairperson thanked all the Members on their election and the Secretariat for its work. He then duly closed the meeting.