A/HRC/37/29 hierarchization of cultures; therefore, its protection served to affirm the universality of culture. 34. A participant noted that intangible cultural heritage and its practitioners could be targeted during hostilities, in particular in cases of religious, ethnic or cultural conflicts. That heritage could also be destroyed or disappear unintentionally, for instance when its custodians had to flee war or could not participate in its manifestation due to circumstances related to the conflict, or when the persons or means enabling its transmission were missing, such as when children were separated from their parents or could not attend school to receive an education respectful of their culture. 35. Several participants stressed the need for stronger condemnation of and better responses to the intentional destruction of cultural heritage. The international community must focus its efforts on ending destruction of cultural heritage by terrorists. Recalling that trade in cultural heritage was thought to be one of the funding sources for terrorist operations, they welcomed the adoption of international instruments to combat the financing of terrorism, but noted that further efforts were needed. 36. Representatives noted that the restoration of damaged world cultural treasures could not be regarded as the sole responsibility of individual States, which often did not have the capacity to undertake such tasks. As stressed in resolution 33/20, affected States needed international assistance to protect and recover their cultural heritage. 37. The author of a written submission stressed that the best way to protect archaeological sites and objects was to document and record them. Inventories of heritage sites formed the basis for legislative protection and prosecutions, and local populations must be actively involved in their elaboration. 38. Regarding the need to increase ratifications of the relevant treaties, participants urged States parties to the relevant treaties to make use of the universal periodic review to encourage other States to ratify them. 39. Participants underscored the need to formalize a human rights approach to the preservation of cultural heritage that also included positive outcomes in terms of economic development, education, literacy and minority involvement in decision-making. They also emphasized the need for stronger linkages between the heritage and human rights fields. 40. The representative of the Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage in Cyprus noted the need to develop a model for the safeguarding of cultural heritage that not only focused on protection from war and conflict, but also from prejudices against minority groups and from inadequate public policies that disregarded the positive role that cultural heritage could play in sustainable development. C. National experiences 41. The representative of Italy said that, in its international cooperation, the Government supported the inclusion of commitments aimed at protecting cultural heritage in the mandate of peace operations, promoted the training of peacekeepers and prioritized the protection of cultural heritage. 42. The representative of France noted that the International Alliance for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Conflict Areas, launched in April 2017, focused on protecting tangible cultural heritage through shelters, but acknowledged that there was a continuum linking tangible and intangible heritage. 43. The representative of Israel said the imperative of preserving the cultural heritage sites of all religions and cultures was enshrined in its national legislation and in the work of relevant national institutions. 44. The representative of Egypt pointed out that the 2014 Constitution mandated the State to preserve the country’s heritage and to entrench the principle of diversity and protection of tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Egypt had been the subject of many 7