 Greetings to all the participants in this important occasion. My name is Karima Benoun and I am the United Nations Special Ruperture in the field of cultural rights. It is my great pleasure to address you on the auspicious occasion of the 20th anniversary of the second protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in Time of Armed Conflict. I regret that my schedule does not permit me to be with you in person today. In these video remarks I will first address the importance of the second protocol to the struggle to protect the cultural heritage of humanity, and then make some suggestions for how this instrument might be more fully and widely implemented, as well as discussing briefly the broader context for your deliberations, namely a human rights approach to the protection of cultural heritage, including an armed conflict. The recent tragic fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris and the widespread grief that this accidental cultural loss caused in France and around the world is a reminder to us all of the importance of heritage to human beings, both to those who have a close connection to the heritage in question, but also to all of humankind. I hope that this sad event can be a catalyst for a renewed international commitment to protect the heritage of all, including when it is intentionally targeted or harmed in armed conflict. The intentional destruction of cultural heritage was the first theme I chose to focus on when I became the special rapporteur in November of 2015, as I was, like so many people around the world, deeply horrified by the televised and openly proclaimed destructions of heritage by extremists in places like Syria. These were attempts to erase history and diversity, to harm other human beings, not just the objects that were destroyed. Human rights law is the underlying standard that applies to cultural heritage protection at all times. However, heritage is also the object of a special protection regime in times of conflict. The core standards include the 1954 Hague Convention and the protocols there, too. The Hague Convention requires state parties to respect cultural property and to refrain from any act of hostility directed against it or any use of it likely to expose it to such acts, subject only to imperative military necessity. In light of concerns about ongoing attacks on cultural property following the entry into force of the convention and the first protocol, the second protocol was developed precisely to enhance protection. For example, it narrows the application of the military necessity waiver to those cases where no feasible alternative is available to obtain a similar military advantage. And it imposes standards of proportionality to prevent or minimize collateral damage. The protocol, the second protocol, requires that imperative necessity apply only when the cultural property in question has been transformed into a military objective and when there is no feasible alternative available to obtain a similar military advantage. Experts have argued that this provision should be understood in practical terms as a complement to Article IV of the convention itself and that they could become customary international law. Given the threat of irreversible and grave impact on the enjoyment of cultural rights, parties to conflicts as well as national and international criminal courts should recognize any military necessity exception to the ban on targeting cultural property or using it in ways that put it at risk as being indeed highly exceptional and not being readily available discretionary loopholes. A broadly interpreted exception swallows a rule. This means that it is essential for the protection of cultural rights that states ratify the second protocol, that even non-ratifying states consider applying the standard it contains and that this standard itself should be interpreted narrowly. Not all military advantages and certainly not those that are not related to preserving human life should be deemed as outweighing the imperative of protecting cultural heritage. Close scrutiny of all military decisions resulting in destruction of cultural heritage and public accountability for those decisions are essential. Naming and shaming with regard to all instances in which cultural heritage has destroyed an armed conflict in deliberate, indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks or in attacks that could have been avoided are essential. These are crimes against the heritage of humanity and gross violations of the cultural rights of current and future generations which cannot be undone. There have been worrying reports of violations of many of these provisions of both the convention and the protocols including the second protocol in recent conflicts and I have endeavored to raise these urgently with governments through the communications procedure where possible. I encourage civil society and experts to submit more such cases for my consideration. As a professor of international law, I know that international law does not implement itself and that it regularly faces challenges in this regard which we as states, civil society, UN mechanisms and experts must come together to address. We must find concerted strategies and set specific goals to be achieved by the 25th anniversary of the protocol and beyond. I am very pleased to note that the number of state parties to the second protocol has increased from 68 at the time of my 2016 report to the General Assembly on intentional destruction of cultural heritage to 82 today with Denmark being the latest state to exceed in 2018. I am pleased that for the first time since 2017, the state parties to the second protocol include two permanent members of the UN Security Council, France and the United Kingdom. This increasing adherence is an important step and yet 82 out of more than 190 states and two permanent members of the Security Council out of five is still far too low. Promoting ratification of the second protocol must be a priority. We must keep campaigning to promote adherence to it in creative ways including through raising this issue during the universal periodic review process before the UN Human Rights Council as well as through civil society advocacy and the promotion of public awareness. We should aim to reach 100 state parties at least and full adherence by all permanent members of the Security Council by no later than the 25th anniversary of the second protocol in 2024 with perhaps a goal of universal adherence by 2030. Here today I again call upon all states and especially upon the remaining permanent members of the Security Council which have not done so to demonstrate collective leadership on this critical issue which is at the heart of meaningful peace and security and ratify the second protocol. States which have already done so should encourage others to follow their important lead. Our collective work to protect cultural heritage including an armed conflict is critical from a human rights perspective because cultural heritage is a human rights issue. The right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage forms part of international human rights law finding its legal basis inter alia in the right to take part in cultural life. In its September 2016 resolution 33 stroke 20 on cultural rights and the protection of cultural heritage the human rights council reminded us that the destruction of or damage to cultural heritage may have a detrimental and irreversible impact on the enjoyment of cultural rights. Cultural heritage is a fundamental resource for other human rights also in particular the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion as well as the economic rights of the many people who earn a living related to tourism on the basis of such heritage. A human rights approach obliges one to take into account these rights of individuals and populations in relation to the heritage. It is impossible to separate a people's cultural heritage from the people itself and their rights. Considering cultural heritage as a human rights issue is critical both as a matter of principle and as a practical matter. In the sense that it reflects the actual lived experience of the interaction with heritage around the world and a practical issue in the sense that given all the atrocities happening in the world we will only be able to mobilize broadly on this issue if we emphasize the deep impact that cultural heritage and its destruction has on human beings individually and in their collectives. It is time to mainstream the human rights approach to cultural heritage including its protection in armed conflict to mainstream it throughout the UN system across regional bodies and different bodies at the national level including military forces. Efforts by the three advisory bodies mandated by the World Heritage Convention and by UNESCO as well as a number of civil society groups in this sense in recent years are to be commended. However the recent removal of the protection of cultural heritage from the Security Council resolution renewing the mandate of MINUSMA in Mali was a significant step backward. Clearly much more systematic engagement is necessary. Today in our collective role as custodians of the past achievements of humanity and in memory of those who have given their lives to defend cultural heritage and to protect in an armed conflict we must recommit to working together in a concerted way to defend the human right to access and enjoy cultural heritage including by promoting widespread ratification and full implementation of the second protocol. Our work together toward these goals must continue. Thank you.