 In my presentation today, I will address the specific, the pseudo-generous, I would say, crimes allegedly perpetrated during the Ukraine-Russia-Ukraine armed conflict, especially in Russia occupied Crimea. But also I will point out the deficiencies of Ukraine's domestic policy with respect to cultural property protection and also, by extension, as regards the domestic investigation and prosecution of cultural property crimes. Generally, from the point of view of the general public, but sometimes we can also notice that, largely we notice that also from the perspective of the courts, crimes against persons get primary attention. However, the situation has been really changing in the recent years, starting with the Bamyan Buddhas blown up by the Taliban, then with the first conviction by the ICC, recognising the individual criminal responsibility of Mr. Almagdi in the Mali case as regards the intentional destruction of cultural property. And generally, even recently, the comments of President Trump as regards the possible targeting of Iranian cultural property also raised a huge public dismay. I think all these issues and the example of the Russia-Ukraine armed conflict exemplify that generally the groups imprinted in history and on a particular territory can be modified and sometimes exterminated, not only by the physical extermination of a person or a group of people, but through the attacks on their cultural heritage. And Bruno mentioned Raphael Lemkin, the person who coined the term genocide, and it should be worth mentioning that Raphael Lemkin also spoke about the cultural genocide. So he understood that extermination or the modification of the role of a group can be done for the attack on its cultural property. As regards the situation in Ukraine, Russia annexed the Ukrainian peninsula in early 2014. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has found that the situation in Crimea amounts to the situation of occupation, which means that under international law under the Geneva Conventions, the law of international armed conflict applies there. Parallel to these developments, the separatist movements allegedly supported by Russia started in eastern Ukraine. And as of now, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, who's conducting a preliminary examination of the situation in Ukraine, has said that the situation in Donbas, the eastern provinces of Ukraine, clearly amounts to a non-international armed conflict and she's currently examining the possible extent of the international component there as well. Both the ICC prosecutor, but also a number of non-international and international human rights organizations, namely Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, monitor the situations both in Crimea and in Donbas, singling out a whole spectrum of violations there. Namely for Crimea, there would be the persecution on political and religious grounds that applies to ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, Ukraine's indigenous, Muslim population in the peninsula, in forced disappearances, unlawful detentions, sham trials. Recently, the ICC prosecutor has also singled out the cultural property crimes allegedly perpetrated in the peninsula, but they concerned more the excessive appropriation of property, not justified by the situation of the armed conflict. As regards eastern Ukraine, the other alleged crimes are being perpetrated there, namely torture, inhuman treatment, the range of sexual and gender-based violence crimes. And as regards the cultural property related issues, the crime of intentional targeting of cultural sites has been singled out. And also the use of cultural venues for the purposes of torture and forced labour. Why the situation with Ukraine's cultural property in the armed conflict is not particularly clear-cut? Well, the violations are quite special. Apart from the so-called ordinary removal of cultural property from the occupied Crimea, for instance, the example would be the Ivozovsky exhibition in Moscow for which more than 30 artworks were taken from a Crimean museum of Ivozovsky. We have also other particular crimes. For instance, in Ukraine's World Heritage Site, the Kyrstenassos, situated there, Russia tried to turn it into the bastion of Christianity and to entrust a priest to manage that cultural site. This is the extension of Russia's policy to assert it as the bastion of Orthodox Christianity in Eastern Europe. Also, the construction of the so-called Crimean, the Kirch Breach, raised the pseudo-generous amalgam of crimes. For the construction of that breach, allegedly quite a few pieces of underwater cultural heritage have been taken from the Sea of Ivozov and the Baxi. Also, to enable the construction of the breach, many Muslim bureau places have been destroyed to connect the breach with the peninsula. Apart from that, also a huge number of archaeological excavations, unsanctioned by Ukraine, are allegedly taking place in occupied Crimea. Apart from that, a very special cultural property crime is perpetrated with respect to the Bakhti Saray Palace, which is the only remaining architectural piece of the Crimean Tatars. As I mentioned, this is an indigenous people who lived in Crimea and who suffered gravely from the Stalin-ordered deportation in 1944. The current occupying authorities argue that this palace needs restoration works. Allegedly, they are conducting this work in a manner that really erases the cultural and historical value of that object, replacing the completing new material. And generally, making these works which are not necessarily according to the former management of the palace. I should also notice that this palace is on the World Heritage Tentative list. And the Ukrainian authorities have not been consulted with with respect to whether such works are needed and what type of works should be conducted. As regards the law applicable to this situation, as I already mentioned, the situation in Crimea amounts to the situation of occupation and therefore the law of international armed conflict applies. So the regulations annexed to the 1907 Fourth Hague Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land, abiding both upon Russia and Ukraine. This convention provides that public religious art and academic institutions actually equal to private property and any damage to such institutions is forbidden and must be prosecuted. Second, both Russia and Ukraine are parties to the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of armed conflict and to its first protocol. And it's very important that the convention prescribes that the occupying authorities have to consult the national authorities of the occupied territory as to in what way cultural property has to be preserved. They may take emergency measures, unilateral emergency measures, but these are the measures in the situation of emergency. And at least going by the media reports and by the reports of the human rights NGOs that we receive about the alleged crimes that are listed in Crimea, no such situation of emergency has risen. And even if it is the situation, so with the Baktisaray Palace, still no consultation has been initiated by the occupying authorities with Ukraine. Also, the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, again, both upon both states provides for the respect for cultural property and also prohibits the illicit expert of cultural property and obliges for the return of it. And also, customary international law provides for the respect for cultural property in armed conflict and the obligation of the occupying power to return any unlawfully expedited cultural property. Same obligations are contained in the UNESCO military manual on the protection of cultural property. And as of now, it seems that the law is pretty straightforward with respect to Russia's obligation not to take unilateral actions towards Ukraine's cultural property in occupied territory. There are more specific obligations, for instance, the ones concerning the enhanced protection or the prohibited modification of cultural property in occupied territories, which is contained in the second protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention that I mentioned. And although Ukraine exceeded to this protocol only yesterday, it still does not provide an excuse to conduct the destructive renovation of the Baktisaray Palace because Russia is not divided to this second protocol. And actually, the obligation not to allow such a destructive modification is contained in the mentioned UNESCO manual on the protection of cultural property. So the excuse that Ukraine was not party to the protocol or that Russia is not party to it still is not really a standing excuse. I will briefly say also why Ukraine's policy still remains flawed with respect to such apparent violations, no matter how apparent they are. First, Ukraine's criminal code is quite cursory as regards the war crimes incorporated in it. Basically, it contains only one article for 138 that lists not far not all war crimes and also not crimes against humanity are inexistent in Ukraine's criminal code. As regards the cultural property crimes, only the pillage of cultural property is indicated in the code. So the currently Ukraine's domestic investigators and prosecutors who deal with the cultural property crimes in Crimea and in Donbas, they use kind of the peaceful articles from the other bits of the code. And it's a bit ironic that it's the sixth year of the armed conflict with Russia and the code remains unupdated and still so cursory with respect to the specific list of war crimes and the more detailed list of war crimes and violations of IHL International Humanitarian Law concerning cultural property. Even more ironic, the second protocol to the Hague Convention that as I mentioned Ukraine acceded to just yesterday contains an obligation of parties to properly criminalize in their domestic legislation the violations against cultural property. So it really remains a lot to be done on a domestic level, both in terms of the implementation of international law into the domestic legislation, but also in terms of professional development of the investigators, prosecutors and judges to deal with these crimes. Apart from this homework that needs to be done, I would just also point out that this very specific violations in Crimea, they are not confined to this particular conflict. They generally indicate the policy of Russia to appropriate the history of that particular peninsula and to say that the imprint of Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars is not that strong. So I think these crimes really speak that assaults against cultural heritage constitute a very creeping encroachment on the people's identity and in danger it's very survival and therefore they should get more and more attention both at international level and domestic level. Thank you very much.