A/HRC/42/CRP.5 without distinguishing between what it was lawfully allowed to attack and what it was prohibited from attacking under the rules of international humanitarian law. 290. The Tatmadaw claimed that it opened fire in these two areas in response to an AA attack on a Tatmadaw convoy that took place 30 kilometres from the village. The military also claimed that the AA took positions in civilian houses, presumably in the areas that the military attacked. The Mission found no evidence of this. The Mission’s information also indicates that the Tatmadaw’s fire was haphazard and random, as the armed convoys drove through Mrauk-U town and Ywar Haung Taw village, hitting people, houses, a 500 yearold pagoda, a Buddha statue and a bank. The fact that the Mission received no reports or indications of injuries to AA fighters further supports the conclusion that the Tatmadaw’s fire was not directed specifically at the AA. Additionally, the type of munitions used in the shelling of the village indicate that the Tatmadaw may have indiscriminately shelled the village. 291. The Mission also concludes on reasonable grounds that, having carried out an indiscriminate attack on Mrauk-U town and Ywar Haung Taw village, the Tatmadaw did not take feasible precautionary measures to avoid, or in any event minimize, the civilian injury and damage to property that it caused, as required under international humanitarian law.659 Conclusions and legal findings: Attacks on cultural property 292. The Mission also concludes on reasonable grounds that the Tatmadaw’s indiscriminate fire in the ancient town of Mrauk-U was a violation of rules under international law that protect cultural property. The right of access to and enjoyment of all forms of cultural heritage is guaranteed by international human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which Myanmar is a party. In its resolution 6/1 on the protection of cultural rights and property in situations of armed conflict, the Human Rights Council reaffirmed that the destruction of or any other form of damage to cultural property may impair the enjoyment of cultural rights, in particular under article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 660 293. Additionally, Myanmar is a State party to the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of an Armed Conflict. The Convention contains rules applicable during a non-international armed conflict661 that prohibit Myanmar from using cultural property and its immediate surroundings, or of the appliances in use for its protection, for purposes which are “likely to expose it to destruction or damage”.662 The Convention also prohibits acts of hostility directed against cultural property except in cases of imperative military necessity.663 The Convention obliges States to prohibit, prevent and put a stop to theft, pillage, misappropriation or vandalism directed against cultural property, and absolutely prohibits acts of reprisals directed against cultural property. 664 The Convention defines cultural property as “property of great importance to the cultural 659 660 661 662 663 664 90 See J.M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, “Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules” (Cambridge, ICRC/Cambridge University Press, 2005), rule 15 (principles of precautions in attack). See Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of Cultural Rights, “Intentional destruction of cultural heritage”, A/71/317. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of an Armed Conflict, Ratified by Myanmar 31 December 1954, see: 1954 Hague Convention, art 19, 1954 Hague Convention, arts 4 (1) and (2). Hague Convention, arts 4 (1) and (2), Further clarified in Articles 1 and 6 of the Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention as only applicable when (i) that cultural property has, by its function, been made into a military objective (meaning an object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage); and (ii) there is no feasible alternative available to obtain a similar military advantage to that offered by directing an act of hostility against that objective. 1954 Hague Convention, art. 4 (4).