 Obviously there's an extremely broad range of legal instruments which provide for protection of cultural property but one of the difficulties that we're seeing in today's armed conflicts is that cultural heritage is becoming the target of attack rather than an incidental or collateral damage during a conflict. There's an additional danger that we're seeing at the moment that looting and pillaging of cultural property during armed conflict is also a serious risk. I think the legal frameworks applicable to protection of cultural property in armed conflict whether it's international armed conflict or non-international armed conflict are solid. The dilemma as with so many areas of the law is it's more to do with compliance with the law, knowledge of the law, compliance with the law, conducting proper investigations when there are breaches of the law and ensuring that there are criminal prosecutions when there are violations of the law. I think one of the particular difficulty comes in when there are conflicts which are essentially identity-based whether it's to do with ethnicity or religion or culture and then the culture itself becomes the target of attack. I think in circumstances like that there needs to be some very creative thinking about what messages can be shared and how those messages can be shared so that the people to whom that cultural property belongs, both the people in the country and more widely have an opportunity to bring their voice to bear, arguing for the importance of that cultural property to their own lives and to their own culture and to their own society. If we look at the question of deliberate attacks on cultural heritage there I think there needs to be probably a two or a three-fold approach. I think the international community needs to be very clear that deliberate destruction of cultural heritage in a time of armed conflict is a war crime and that it will be subject to prosecution either during or post the armed conflict. I think we need to ensure that there's appropriate dissemination of the rules about armed conflict so that people will know that to destroy cultural heritage is a violation of international humanitarian law and may be subject to criminal prosecution. And then I think thirdly and possibly this is particularly true in relation to non-international armed conflict where there are elements of cultural, religious, ethnic motivation in the conflict. We need to try to speak to the bulk of the people within that society, give them a voice, encourage them to lift up their own voice in defence of their own cultural heritage during a time when it's subject to threat. We have to bear in mind that a people has a culture and a culture is made up of objects and those objects are part of who the people are and for that people to recreate itself and reconstruct itself at the close of an armed conflict it's important that they have their cultural reference points. There's also some indication and evidence that where cultural heritage is attacked it can also make much more difficult the reconciliation process after a conflict because people feel that that which was theirs and therefore their identity in themselves has been damaged as a result of attacks on cultural property so it's not that we want to say that one is more important than the other but where there are attacks on people there may also be attacks on cultural property and we need to deal with both issues at the same time.