A/HRC/37/29 V. Issues needing further attention A. Statements by panellists 68. Ms. Izsak-Ndiaye spoke about the numerous occasions on which she and other special procedure mandate holders had addressed attacks on religious and cultural sites of minorities. She noted that the intentional destruction of cultural heritage could be aimed at erasing evidence of the presence of minorities, and underscored that there was often little or no accountability for the perpetrators of those crimes. 69. Ms. Izsak-Ndiaye recalled that the protection of minority groups went beyond the duty not to destroy or deliberately weaken them; it also required respect for and protection of their religious and cultural heritage. 70. She explained that in her regular discussions with authorities, she had been concerned about the lack of national strategies for minority integration and how minority cultures were rarely referred to as “part of our national heritage” or “our culture”. That showed that minority cultures were often regarded as “alien” or “exotic”, which provided impetus to those who saw a perceived national homogenous identity threatened by minority cultures. Ms. Izsak-Ndiaye stressed that conscious efforts should be made to include minorities’ viewpoints in historical narratives. 71. Because destruction of cultural heritage could be used as a strategy to destroy the morale of the enemy, cultural heritage was considered in international humanitarian law as requiring a special protection regime during conflict. Ms. Izsak-Ndiaye recalled the judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in which the Tribunal found that the destruction of cultural property with discriminatory intent against a cultural community could be charged as a crime against humanity, and that the intentional destruction of cultural and religious property and symbols could be considered as evidence of intent to destroy a group within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 72. Ms. Izsak-Ndiaye provided a list of priorities for addressing the destruction of cultural heritage: (a) analysing the motives underpinning those actions, because each of them required a different response; (b) adopting preventive strategies to protect heritage sites, with the involvement of local communities; and (c) adopting accountability and reconciliation measures. 73. Ms. Shortland explained that the Pacific Indigenous and Local Knowledge Centre of Distinction had raised the visibility of the challenges faced by local populations, including the impact of natural disasters and climate change, in safeguarding their cultural heritage. She noted the expertise possessed by indigenous peoples’ organizations on those issues and the extensive work they had performed in international forums. Those organizations also provided capacity-building to affected groups to find justice and reconciliation, and had raised their concerns at the United Nations. 74. Ms. Shortland noted the need to elevate the role of indigenous peoples in cultural heritage decision-making and recalled that there should be “no decision about us without us”. She further underscored the need to facilitate the engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities in the international debates on cultural heritage protection. She raised in particular the need to address the situation of Pacific climate migrants who had been forced to leave their heritage places and establish elsewhere, and called on States to mobilize resources to support indigenous peoples’ organizations. 75. Mr. Keita noted that the phenomena of looting and illicit trade of cultural heritage in Mali, although pre-existing, had worsened with the jihadist occupation in 2012 and the resulting absence of the State. That had led to the destruction of mausoleums in the city of Timbuktu, which were places of pilgrimage that had brought the community together, and affected tangible and intangible heritage. Due to the lack of preventive measures, those phenomena now affected the entire country. 11