A/HRC/37/29 Convention to illegal exports from all countries that had ratified it rather than to specific objects or conflict zones. She encouraged States to follow that example and ensure that they did not become markets for illegally removed cultural materials. 26. Ms. Gerstenblith further recognized the recent landmark prosecution at the International Criminal Court of Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi for the destruction of shrines and monuments in Timbuktu, Mali. She hoped to see more prosecutions for intentional destruction and for destruction that resulted from extreme negligence or wilful disregard of cultural heritage protection imperatives. 27. Ms. Johannot-Gradis focused her presentation on the damages inflicted on cultural heritage, and particularly on intangible heritage, in armed conflict. That heritage encompassed cultural expressions, beliefs, know-how, traditional knowledge, etc. She noted that often, cultural heritage destruction resulting from war had devastating impacts on both its tangible and intangible dimensions, although harm to the latter was less visible. For example, alongside the destruction of the Timbuktu mausoleums, the local populations’ intangible heritage was also gravely harmed. The rituals and ceremonies that had always been held around the mausoleums were banned during the conflict and had ceased to exist. 28. Ms. Johannot-Gradis recalled that no international humanitarian law norms specifically preserved intangible heritage; however, many of them did so indirectly by protecting life, physical integrity, dignity, non-discrimination, religious practices and other fundamental human rights. The International Court of Justice had several times ruled that human rights norms remained primarily applicable in armed conflict when it offered more precise protection in a given situation than international humanitarian law. Cultural rights, particularly the right to participate in and have access to cultural life and heritage, were crucial for the protection of intangible cultural heritage in armed conflict. 29. She stressed that no norms of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage formally prescribed its application in armed conflict; however, the Intergovernmental Committee established under the Convention had adopted the principle of the applicability of the Convention in armed conflict, and had recently decided that operational modalities for the implementation of the principles of the Convention in case of emergencies, including armed conflicts, must be explored. 30. Ms. Johannot-Gradis stressed that the low level of ratification of relevant treaties was a major obstacle to the protection of cultural heritage in wartime, as was their weak implementation due to insufficient preventive measures before (military training), during (operational protection measures) and after war (accountability and reparation mechanisms). B. Summary of discussions and inputs received 31. During the interactive discussion, representatives of the following States took the floor: Azerbaijan, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Serbia, Switzerland and Russian Federation. Representatives of the following organizations made statements: Advisory Body Initiative to the World Heritage Convention, National Human Rights Council of Morocco, Observatory for Diversity and Cultural Rights, RASHID International and Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage in Cyprus. A staff member of the OHCHR Minority Fellowship Programme spoke. Written inputs were also received from States and civil society. 32. Several participants underscored the importance of resolution 33/20 in introducing a human rights-based approach to the protection of cultural heritage, and thanked Ms. Bennoune for her 2016 report in which she proposed recommendations for the adoption of such an approach. 33. One participant underscored that culture was an essential source of sustainability of diverse groups and was particularly vulnerable during and after armed conflicts or terrorist attacks. The aim of intentional and systematic destruction of cultural heritage was often to undermine specific cultural identities, which could sometimes be qualified as “cultural cleansing”. Another participant noted that the destruction of cultural heritage unveiled a 6