SECOND PROTOCOL TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1954 FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT

Transcription

1 13 COM 11 C54/18/13.COM/11 Paris, 10 October 2018 Original: English SECOND PROTOCOL TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1954 FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT THIRTEENTH MEETING UNESCO Headquarters 6-7 December 2018 Item 11 of the provisional agenda: Application and Interpretation of Article 10 (a) of the 1999 Second Protocol This document provides information concerning the interpretation and application of Article 10 (a) of the 1999 Second Protocol, as requested by Decision 12.COM 10 of the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Paris, November 2017), as well as a proposal for amendments to the Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol Draft decision: 13.COM 11, see paragraph 30.

2 C54/18/13.COM/11 page 2 Introduction 1. At its 12th meeting (Paris, November 2017), the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict ( the Committee ), by its Decision 12.COM 10, requested the Secretariat to prepare, in consultation with relevant international governmental and non-governmental organizations as specified in Article 27 (3) of the Second Protocol, a comprehensive document on the interpretation and application of Article 10 (a) of the 1999 Second Protocol and to submit it to its 13th meeting in To follow up on this decision, the Secretariat presents this document on the interpretation and application of Article 10 (a) of the 1999 Second Protocol. 3. The document is divided into three parts. The first part provides background information on practical challenges to effective application of Article 10 (a) of the 1999 Second Protocol and elaborates on the work of the Committee in this regard. The second part provides for a possible interpretation of this Article through analysis of the means of interpretation set forth in Article 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The third part of the document formulates concrete proposals on the proposed application of Article 10 (a) of the Second Protocol. 4. In Annex 1, the document presents proposals to amend the Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol ( the Guidelines ). The proposals aim to improve the procedural aspects of the submission, registration, and evaluation of requests for the granting of the enhanced protection by essentially providing a procedural timeframe to applicant States. 5. It should be noted that the scope of this document is limited to immovable cultural properties not inscribed on the World Heritage List because to date, no State Party has submitted a movable cultural property, or a documentary heritage inscribed on of Memory of the World Register for the granting of enhanced protection. Furthermore, the Informal Working Group established by Decision 11 COM.7 has focused its work exclusively on the evaluation of compliance of immovable cultural property not inscribed on the World Heritage List with criterion 10(a) of the Second Protocol. Application of Article 10 (a) to movable cultural properties, the absence of effective post-inscription monitoring mechanisms to evaluate the compliance with Article 10 of the Second Protocol are existing challenges, which fall outside the scope of the present document. These challenges also must be addressed to increase the efficiency and the credibility of the enhanced protection mechanism and to ensure its long-term sustainability. Part I The granting of enhanced protection to cultural property 6. Chapter 3 of the 1999 Second Protocol establishes an enhanced protection mechanism to reinforce the protection regime of certain cultural properties in peacetime and in the event of armed conflict including occupation. To obtain such protection, a State Party to the 1999 Second Protocol must submit a written request to the Committee through the Secretariat. 7. The Guidelines, which include a set of texts elaborated by the Committee and adopted by the Meeting of Parties to the 1999 Second Protocol, provide general guidelines for the application of the provisions of the 1999 Second Protocol, including the enhanced protection mechanism. 8. In accordance with paragraph 46 of the Guidelines the Secretariat acknowledges the receipt of a request, registers it, checks for completeness and forwards complete requests to the Bureau of the Committee for its prima facie evaluation and subsequently to the Committee for its final consideration (Chart 1). Enhanced protection is granted to the cultural property 1 Please see Decision 12.COM 10:

3 C54/18/13.COM/11 page 3 concerned from the moment of its entry in the International List of Cultural Property under Enhanced Protection following a positive decision of the Committee. Chart 1: Procedure for granting of enhanced protection Acknowledges the receipt, checks for completeness and registers the request; Requests any additional information from the Party, as appropriate; Forwards complete requests to the Bureau for prima facie consideration together with a review for completeness. The Secretariat The Bureau Makes preliminary evaluation; Forwards the request to the Committee; May propose a decision. Informs the States Parties to the 1999 Second Protocol of the request; Considers the representations of the States Parties, if any; Decides whether a cultural property shall be granted or denied enhanced protection or whether the request should be referred or deferred. The Committee 9. The granting of enhanced protection to cultural property is subject to the fulfilment of three conjunctive conditions set forth in Article 10 of the 1999 Second Protocol, namely: a. Cultural property must be a cultural heritage of the greatest importance for humanity; b. Cultural property must be protected by adequate domestic legal and administrative measures recognising its exceptional cultural and historic value and ensuring the highest level of protection; c. Cultural property must not be used for military purposes or to shield military sites and a declaration must be made by the Party, which has control over this property, confirming that it will not be so used. 10. It is the responsibility of the requesting State Party to provide necessary information related to the above-mentioned conditions. In this regard, paragraphs and of the Guidelines and the established practice of the Bureau of the Committee and that of the Committee provide sufficient guidance on the information required for the justification of the compliance with criteria of Articles 10 (b) and 10 (c). 11. With regard to Article 10 (a), the criterion of the greatest importance for humanity, paragraph 32 of the Guidelines states that while considering whether cultural property is of greatest importance for humanity, the Committee will evaluate, case by case, its exceptional cultural significance, and/or its uniqueness, and/or if its destruction would lead to irretrievable loss for humanity [Emphasis added by the Secretariat]. Those conditions are disjunctive. 12. Paragraphs of the Guidelines provide a certain guidance as to the interpretation of the notions of exceptional cultural significance, uniqueness, and irretrievable loss for humanity. However, it should be noted that those paragraphs do not provide clear and practical guidance on the scope of information required to be provided by applicant States Parties, the Committee and the Secretariat with justifications on compliance with Article 10 (a). Moreover, they do not provide for an effective and sustainable methodology of evaluation, thus paving a way for an ad hoc and case-to-case evaluation. It should be stressed that such issue does not arise with regard to immovable cultural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List because paragraph 36 of the Guidelines provides for the presumption of compliance of

4 C54/18/13.COM/11 page 4 immovable cultural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List with the criterion of the greatest importance for humanity. 13. This practical ambiguity of the Guidelines may prevent States Parties considering submitting requests for the granting of enhanced protection from understanding fully the scope of the information required to justify the compliance with Article 10 (a). Thus, the application of Article 10 (a), with regard to cultural properties not inscribed on the World Heritage List, stands as one of the major challenges to operationalize the enhanced protection mechanism. 14. Statistical analysis of the submission, completion and evaluation of requests also reflects the above-mentioned problem. In the period, 15 States Parties requested enhanced protection for their 39 cultural properties, 5 of which were cultural properties not inscribed on the World Heritage List. 2 In each of these cases, the Secretariat acknowledged the receipt, registered the request and asked for an additional information with a view to completing the documentation. 21 requests were completed and transmitted to the Committee (Table 1). 3 Table 1: Statistical information on the number of requests submitted to the Committee Number of cultural properties not inscribed on the World Heritage List Number of cultural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List TOTAL Number of cultural properties completed and forwarded to the Committee for its consideration 15. To address the challenge to apply Article 10 (a) with regard to immovable cultural properties not inscribed on the World Heritage List, the Committee and the Secretariat have taken a number of measures. For example, in 2013, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) was commissioned to conduct two studies on the evaluation of criteria of Articles 10 (a) and 10 (b) of the 1999 Second Protocol. Although the studies presented significant conclusions, in particular on differences between the concepts of the greatest importance for humanity and outstanding universal value, they did not provide sufficient guidance and practice on feasible methodologies to evaluate Article 10 (a). 4 Furthermore, in 2016, by Decision 11.COM 7, the Committee established an informal working group on the application of Article 10 (a), composed of experts from the States Parties to the 1999 Second Protocol. 5 The informal working group met twice in 2017 and adopted recommendations suggesting the creation of a scientific body in charge of the evaluation of the requests. The Secretariat presented to the 12th meeting of the Committee the financial, legal, procedural and operational implications of the creation of such a scientific body. 6 The Committee took no decision to follow up on this proposal. 7 2 The following States parties submitted requests for the granting of enhanced protection: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Georgia, Italy, Lithuania, Mali, Nigeria, and Serbia. 3 5 out of 21 cultural properties submitted for the granting of enhanced protection were sites not inscribed on the World Heritage List. 4 cultural properties submitted by Azerbaijan were referred back to the requesting State for additional information in 2010, and 1 cultural property submitted by Italy forwarded to the Committee for its consideration in See the ICOMOS studies: 5 See the Decision: 6 See Document C54/17/7.COM/10: 7 Decision 12.COM 10 (Paris, November 2017) asked the members of the Committee to provide the Secretariat a list of their experts and requested the Secretariat to consult these experts, if and when necessary, during the review process. Argentina, Armenia Cyprus and Japan provided the names and coordinates of their experts.

5 C54/18/13.COM/11 page 5 Part II Interpretation of Article 10 (a) 16. First of all, it should be stressed that the Secretariat has no mandate to provide the official interpretation of the Convention and/or its two Protocols; such prerogative lies with States Parties. Thus, the opinion expressed in this document is not legally binding on States Parties and is only intended to facilitate to the States Parties the interpretation of Article 10 (a). 17. In accordance with Article 31 (General rules of interpretation) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. In this regard, any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions, any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation, as well as any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties are the primary means of interpretation. In case the primary means of interpretation prove insufficient for determining the legally correct meaning of an interpreted treaty provision, recourse may be sought to the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion With regard to the subsequent practice in implementation of Article 10 (a), it must be noted that to date the Committee has taken decision on this issue only in one occasion, at its 5th meeting (Paris, November 2010) when it referred back 4 cultural properties not inscribed on the World Heritage List submitted by Azerbaijan. 9 Subsequently Azerbaijan withdrew these requests. Another request for the granting of enhanced protection to a cultural property not inscribed on the World Heritage List submitted by Italy is on the provisional agenda of the 13th meeting of the Committee (Paris, 6-7 December 2018). Thus, there is no established practice in granting enhanced protection to cultural properties not inscribed on the World Heritage List. 19. The Guidelines may be considered as a subsequent agreement between the Parties regarding the implementation of the provisions of the 1999 Second Protocol. In this context, the Guidelines is one of the primary means of interpretation of the provisions of the 1999 Second Protocol by virtue of Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties. 20. The Guidelines echo the conclusions that the concept of the greatest importance for humanity does not aim to limit the scope of the enhanced protection mechanism for cultural properties of Outstanding Universal Value but it also purports to cover cultural properties of national and regional importance. This conclusion stems from paragraph 33 indicative criteria of exceptional cultural significance of the Guidelines. Paragraph 33 reads as follows: 33. Cultural property of national, regional or universal value may have exceptional cultural significance. This significance may be deduced from the following indicative criteria: it is an exceptional cultural property bearing testimony to one or more periods of the development of humankind at the national, regional or global level; it represents a masterpiece of human creativity; it bears an exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; it exhibits an important interchange of human achievements, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world on developments in arts and sciences; it has a central significance to the cultural identity of societies concerned. [Emphasis added by the Secretariat] 21. Taking into account paragraph 33 of the Guidelines, it is clear that cultural properties which do not have an Outstanding Universal Value but are important at the national or regional 8 Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 9 See the Final Report, page 6:

6 C54/18/13.COM/11 page 6 level may be considered to fulfil the criterion of comprising the greatest importance for humanity. 22. In comparison to the Guidelines of the 1999 Second Protocol, the Operational Guidelines of the 1972 Convention take a different direction and require the cultural property nominated for the World Heritage List to reflect the importance for present and future generations of all humanity. For instance, paragraph 49 of the Operational Guidelines defines the concept of Outstanding Universal Value as follows: 49. Outstanding Universal Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole. The Committee defines the criteria for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List. [Emphasis added by the Secretariat] 23. Thus, the concept of Outstanding Universal Value entails more in-depth evaluation and has a higher level of standard of proof in comparison with the greatest importance for humanity, which is more inclusive To conclude, any interpretation of Article 10 (a) of the 1999 Second Protocol must be undertaken in light of its object and purpose of this international treaty, which is to protect cultural property in the event of armed conflict. The drafters of the 1999 Second Protocol never intended to restrict cultural properties under enhanced protection to those already inscribed on the World Heritage List. This is supported by the fact that any cultural property which falls under the definition of Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention may be granted enhanced protection if it complies with the three criteria of Article 10 of the 1999 Second Protocol. Part III Application of Article 10 (a) 25. Paragraph 57 of the Guidelines requires States Parties requesting the granting of enhanced protection to a cultural property to provide a description of the cultural property. This paragraph also necessitates the submission of information needed to substantiate the proof that the cultural property meets the criterion of being of greatest importance for humanity under Article 10 (a). This requirement is also reflected in part 3.B of the Enhanced Protection Request Form. 11 In this regard, to clarify the scope of information required to justify the compliance with Article 10 (a), an amendment to paragraph 57 is proposed (cf. draft paragraph 59 of the Annex to the present document). The proposed amendment will require the State Party requesting the granting of enhanced protection to a cultural property to provide substantive information to justify exceptional cultural significance of a cultural property, and/or its uniqueness, and/or if its destruction would lead to irretrievable loss for humanity in accordance with paragraphs of the Guidelines. 26. In cooperation with its institutional partners, the Secretariat will work to further improve the Enhanced Protection Request Form with one goal being to compile accurate and reliable geographical and structural information relevant to the military. 27. Finally, as discussed during the meeting of the Bureau on 27 September 2018, the Bureau of the Committee subject to the availability of appropriate financial resources, may wish to request organizations with relevant expertise, such as the Blue Shield, to make an evaluation of compliance with Article 10 (a) of the Second Protocol of an immovable cultural property(ies) not inscribed on the World Heritage List. This may concern essentially two 10 The fundamental differences between the concepts of the greatest importance for humanity and outstanding universal value were also highlighted by the Advisory Bodies of the World Heritage Centre. Please see document WHC-15/39.COM/11 (paragraph 25): 11 Enhanced Protection Request Form is an integral part of the Guidelines (Annex 1). Thus, any modification to the Form entails amendments the Guidelines.

7 C54/18/13.COM/11 page 7 cases: (i) cultural property located within the boundaries of the World Heritage site, and (ii) immovable cultural property not inscribed on the World Heritage List. In the former case, the desk study may be sufficient to make this evaluation. In the latter case, a field visit of experts may be required. Table 2 below provides the approximate costs of desk review and field visit used conducted by ICOMOS in the framework of the 1972 World Heritage Convention. In this regard, the preparation of guidelines on requesting an advisory opinion from organisations with relevant expertise, such as Blue Shield, concerning the evaluation of requests is necessary. Table 2: Potential process for the evaluation of requests submitted for the granting of enhanced protection. 12 Cultural property inscribed on the World Heritage List Cultural property not inscribed on the World Heritage List but located within the boundaries of a World Heritage site Cultural property not inscribed on the World Heritage List Completeness check The Secretariat, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre The Secretariat, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre Evaluation body ICOMOS ICOMOS Blue Shield International The Secretariat ICOMOS Blue Shield International Recommended advisory service N/A Desk study Desk study Expert field mission Funding source N/A Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict Fund for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict Estimated cost No cost 250 USD (per request) 4000 USD (per request) Conclusion 28. The very purpose of the 1954 Hague Convention and its two (1954 and 1999) Protocols is to strengthen the protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict. Therefore, the enhanced protection mechanism must be interpreted and applied with the purpose of contributing to this objective. 29. The above-mentioned measures will contribute to the status of the International List of Enhanced Protection as an international database of cultural properties. This database will serve as a reliable source for States Parties to better protect cultural properties in the event of hostilities. 30. The Committee may wish to adopt the following decision: DRAFT DECISION 13. COM 11 The Committee, 1. Having examined document C54/18/13.COM/11, 2. Takes note, with appreciation, of the proposed inclusive interpretation of Article 10 (a) of the Second Protocol and encourages States Parties to take this interpretation into account when considering the requests of cultural property for the granting of enhanced protection; 12 The figures reflected in the table are taken from Document WHC/17/41.COM/INF.14.II (page 18) and may vary for the evaluation of requests submitted for the granting of enhanced protection. See the document:

8 C54/18/13.COM/11 page 8 3. Requests the Secretariat, in consultation, through electronic means, with the members of the Committee and following its approval, to revise the Enhanced Protection Request Form and to present it at the 8th Meeting of the Parties; 4. Further requests the Secretariat to prepare guidelines for requesting advisory services from the relevant organizations specified in Article 27(3) of the Second Protocol with regard to the evaluation of requests for the granting of enhanced protection and submit them at the 8th Meeting of the Parties ; 5. Further takes note of the proposed amendments to the Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol and recommends that the Meeting of the Parties endorse the proposed amendments to the Guidelines at its 8th Meeting.

9 C54/18/13.COM/11 Annex page 9 Annex Proposals of amendments to the Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol 13 Guidelines for the implementation of the Second Protocol 44. The Parties are entitled and encouraged to submit to the Committee requests for the granting of enhanced protection to cultural property under their jurisdiction or control. The Committee, which establishes and maintains the List, decides in each particular case whether the criteria set out above are met. To facilitate the granting of enhanced protection, the Secretariat prepared an enhanced protection request form (Annex I). 45. The request for the granting of enhanced protection is sent by the Permanent Delegation to UNESCO of the Party to the Committee through the Secretariat. Requests need to be received by the Secretariat by 1 March of each year at the latest in order to be considered at the upcoming meeting of the Committee. Requests received after this deadline will be considered during the next meeting of the Committee. The above-mentioned date does not apply to requests for provisional enhanced protection. 46. The Secretariat acknowledges the receipt, checks for completeness and registers the request. The Secretariat requests any additional information from the Party, as appropriate, and all such information must be received, preferably, in a single submission of one complete file within two months of the date of the request from the Secretariat. The Secretariat forwards complete requests to the Bureau for prima facie consideration together with a review of completeness prepared by the Secretariat. Proposed amendments 44. The Parties are entitled and encouraged to submit to the Committee requests for the granting of enhanced protection to cultural property under their jurisdiction or control. The Committee, which establishes and maintains the List, decides in each particular case whether the criteria set out above are met. The request for the granting of enhanced protection must be prepared in accordance with the format set out in Annex I. To facilitate the granting of enhanced protection, the Secretariat prepared an enhanced protection request form (Annex I). 45. The request for the granting of enhanced protection is sent may be submitted by or in cooperation with, where appropriate, the Permanent Delegation to UNESCO of the Party to the Committee through the Secretariat at any time during the year. Requests need to be received by the Secretariat by on or before 1 March of each year at the latest in order to be considered at the upcoming meeting of the Committee. Requests received after this deadline will be considered during the next meeting of the Committee. The above-mentioned date does not apply to requests for provisional enhanced protection. 46. The Secretariat acknowledges the receipt, checks for completeness and registers the request. The Secretariat requests any additional information from the Party, as appropriate, and all such information must be received preferably, in a single submission of one complete file within two months of the date of the request from the Secretariat. The Secretariat forwards complete requests to the Bureau for prima facie consideration together with a review of completeness prepared by the Secretariat. The timetable for registration and processing of requests is detailed in paragraph The proposed amendments are marked in bold or strikethrough characters.

10 C54/18/13.COM/11 Annex page The Bureau may consult organisations with relevant expertise for evaluation of the request. The Bureau will forward the request (including the evaluation) to the Committee and may propose a decision. 49. The Committee considers the representations, providing the requesting Party with a reasonable opportunity to respond before making a decision. 54. A request submitted by a Party meets the following requirements in order to be considered by the Committee: 57. The Party provides the relevant information and documentation on the cultural property concerned, including those on the present state of conservation, the appearance of the cultural property, as well as its history and development. This includes a description on how the cultural property has reached its present form and the significant changes that it has undergone. The information provides the facts needed to support and substantiate the argument that the cultural property meets the criterion of being of greatest importance for humanity under Article 10 (a). 62. g. Format of the request Parties are invited to submit their requests both in paper and electronic format provided by the Secretariat. Requests may be submitted in one of the two working languages of the Secretariat. 47. A request which is not completed within three years following the initial submission date will be considered as a new request and must follow the regular procedure of submission The Bureau may consult organisations with relevant expertise for evaluation of the request. The Bureau will forward the request, (including the its observations evaluation, to the Committee and may propose a decision The Committee considers the representations, made on the basis of the criteria mentioned in Article 10, providing the requesting Party with a reasonable opportunity to respond before making a decision A request submitted by a Party meets to be considered as complete, the following requirements in order to be considered by the Committee (see format in Annex I) are to be met: 587. The Party provides the relevant information and documentation on the cultural property concerned, including those on the present state of conservation, the appearance of the cultural property, as well as its history and development. This includes a description on how the cultural property has reached its present form and the significant changes that it has undergone. The information provides the facts needed to support and substantiate the argument that the cultural property meets the criterion of being of greatest importance for humanity under Article 10 (a). 59. In accordance with paragraphs 32-35, the requesting Party shall provide facts needed to support and substantiate the argument that the cultural property concerned has exceptional cultural significance, and/or is unique, and/or its destruction would lead to irretrievable loss for humanity g. Format of the request Documentation Parties are invited to submit their requests both in paper and electronic format provided by the Secretariat. Requests may be submitted in one of the two working languages of the Secretariat. All documentation necessary to substantiate the request shall be provided. The text of the request shall be transmitted in printed form as well as in electronic format (Word and/or PDF

11 C54/18/13.COM/11 Annex page 11 format preferred) in one of the two working languages of the Secretariat. 65. Accuracy of information 64. A Party may withdraw in writing a request it has submitted at any time prior to the Committee s session at which it is scheduled to be examined. The Party can resubmit a request for the cultural property, which will be considered as a new request. The requesting Party shall ensure that the information submitted in relation to the three criteria of Article 10 is accurate A Party may withdraw in writing a request it has submitted at any time prior to the Committee s session meeting at which it is scheduled to be examined. The Party can resubmit a request for the cultural property, which will be considered as a new request III.F Timetable Overview TIMETABLE PROCEDURES 1 March Year 1 Deadline by which requests must be received by the Secretariat to be transmitted to the Bureau for its prima facie consideration. Requests received after this date will be considered during the next meeting of the Committee. 1 March 1 April Year 1 Registration, assessment of completeness and transmission to the Bureau. The Secretariat registers each request, acknowledges receipt to the requesting Party. The Secretariat informs the requesting Party whether or not the request is complete.

12 C54/18/13.COM/11 Annex page 12 Requests that are not complete (see paragraph 55) will not be transmitted to the Bureau for its prima facie consideration. 1 April Year 1 Deadline by which the Secretariat informs the Party of the receipt of a request, whether it is considered complete and whether it has been received by 1 March. If a request is incomplete, the Party concerned will be advised of information required to complete the request. 1 July Deadline by which the requesting Party must provide additional information asked by the Secretariat in order to complete the request. A request which is not completed within three years following the initial submission date will be considered as a new request and must follow the regular procedure. 12 weeks prior to the annual meeting of the Committee Deadline by which the Secretariat transmits a complete request to the Bureau for its prima facie consideration.

13 C54/18/13.COM/11 Annex page 13 9 weeks prior to the annual meeting of the Committee The Bureau forwards the request, including its assessment, to the Committee. Once the Committee has received a request, it immediately informs all Parties of the request for inclusion in the List. Parties may submit a representation concerning the request to the Committee within 60 days. These representations may only be made on the basis of the criteria mentioned in Article 10, as well as Article 11(2) and must be specific and related to facts. Immediately following the annual meeting of the Committee The Committee immediately informs the Director-General of its decision to include cultural property in the List. The Director-General in turn notifies without delay the Secretary-General of the United Nations and all Parties to the Second Protocol of the decision of the Committee.