Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter12_rule41_sectionb
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 15:09:20+00:00

Document:
Italy shall restore to Yugoslavia all objects of artistic, historical, scientific, educational or religious character … which, as the result of the Italian occupation, were removed between 4 November 1918 and 2 March 1924 from the territories ceded to Yugoslavia under the treaties signed in Rapallo on 12 November 1920 and in Rome on 27 January 1924.
Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers on the one part and Italy on the other part, Paris, 10 February 1947, Article 12.
Under Article 37 of the 1947 Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Italy, Italy was obliged to “restore all works of art, religious objects, archives and objects of historical value belonging to Ethiopia or its nationals and removed from Ethiopia to Italy since 3 October 1935”.
Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers on the one part and Italy on the other part, Paris, 10 February 1947, Article 37.
Upon the entry into force of the present Convention, the Federal Republic [of Germany] shall establish, staff and equip an administrative agency which shall … search for, recover, and restitute jewellery, silverware and antique furniture … and cultural property, if such articles or cultural property were, during the occupation of any territory, removed therefrom by the forces or authorities of Germany or its Allies or their individual members (whether or not pursuant to orders) after acquisition by duress (with or without violence), by larceny, by requisitioning or by other forms of dispossession by force.
Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation (with Annex), Bonn, 26 May 1952, also known as the Transference Treaty, as amended by Schedule IV to the Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Régime in the Federal Republic of Germany, Paris, 23 October 1954, Chapter 5, Article 1, para. 1.
4. The High Contracting Party whose obligation was to prevent the exportation of cultural property from the territory occupied by it, shall pay an indemnity to the holders in good faith of any cultural property which has to be returned in accordance with the preceding paragraph.
Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Articles 3 and 4.
The States Parties undertake to oppose [the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property] with the means at their disposal, and particularly by removing their causes, putting a stop to current practices, and by helping to make the necessary reparations.
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, adopted by the 16th Session of the UNESCO General Conference, Paris, 14 November 1970, Article 2(2).
Each party to the conflict shall be bound to prevent the exportation of cultural property from a territory occupied by it during an international armed conflict. If, in spite of this prohibition, cultural property should nevertheless be transferred from the occupied territory into the territory of another party, the latter shall be bound to place such property under its protection. This shall be effected either immediately upon the importation of the property or, failing this, at a later date, at the request of the authorities of the occupied territory concerned.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 67.c.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 68(c), p. 268.
2. the authorities of the Contracting State address a request for return to the Federal Foreign Office through the diplomatic channel.
(2) Deposited cultural property in the sense of Paragraph II No. 5 of the Protocol to the Convention of 14 May 1954 (Federal Law Gazette 1967, Part II, p. 1233, 1300) shall be returned after the close of hostilities, without the further conditions of paragraph 1 needing to be fulfilled.
(3) The costs of the return are borne by the requesting State.
(4) A person who, for himself or for someone else, exercises actual physical control of cultural property (person under the obligation to return), is obligated to return the cultural property only in reciprocal and simultaneous exchange for adequate compensation. The obligation to compensate is not applicable if the requesting State proves that the person under the obligation to return knew or as a result of gross negligence did not know when acquiring the cultural property that the property was moved from occupied territory or was deposited for the purpose of protection.
(5) If the person under the obligation to return acquired the cultural property through donation, inheritance or legacy, he assumes responsibility for the duties of care of the donor or the deceased.
Germany, Law Implementing the 1954 Cultural Property Convention, 2007, Section 1.
In the event of an armed conflict, restitution and/or recovery of cultural property shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the 1954 Hague Convention [for the Protection of Cultural Property] and its two protocols of 1954 and 1999. In such a case, competent authorities shall reciprocally facilitate the process of restitution and/or recovery of cultural property belonging to the cultural heritage of another State (obtained in violation of international law in the context of an armed conflict) if the property is located on Peruvian territory.
all cultural values located in the territory of the Russian Federation that were brought [as a result of the Second World War] into the USSR by way of exercise of its right to compensatory restitution … pursuant to orders of the Soviet Army Military Command, the Soviet Military Administration in Germany or instructions of other competent bodies in the USSR.
Russian Federation, Law on Removed Cultural Property, 1997, Article 6.
By the term “cultural values” is meant “any property of a religious or secular nature which has historic, artistic, scientific or any other cultural importance”, either owned by the State or privately.
Russian Federation, Law on Removed Cultural Property, 1997, Article 4.
However, the following types of properties may be claimed under the law: a) the cultural values plundered by Germany or its allies that were the national property of the former Soviet republics; b) the property of religious organizations or private charities which, being used exclusively for religious or charitable aims, did not serve the interest of militarism and/or Fascism; c) the cultural values previously owned by victims of Nazi/Fascist persecutions; d) all other removed cultural values located in Russia and originating from territories of States, other than the former Soviet republics, that were occupied during the war by Germany or its allies; and e) family relics.
Russian Federation, Law on Removed Cultural Property, 1997, Articles 7–12.
France, Paris Administrative Court, Kaplan case, Judgment, 25 June 2010, p. 1.
[A]ccording to article 1 of the Decree [No. 99-778] of 10 September 1999: “ … a commission is established before the prime minister with the mandate of reviewing individual claims submitted by victims or their legal heirs or assignees in order to receive reparation for damages following the despoliation of their property resulting from anti-Semitic legislation adopted during the Occupation by either the occupying power or the Vichy government”.
France, Paris Administrative Court, Kaplan case, Judgment, 25 June 2010, p. 2.
Russian Federation, Constitutional Court, Law on Removed Cultural Property case, 20 July 1999.
In 1991, the Government of Germany declared that it “fully accepts the fact that cultural property has to be returned after the end of hostilities”. Germany has returned cultural property in all cases in which the cultural goods were found and could be identified. In other cases, Germany has paid compensation to the original owner countries.
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by a Member of Parliament, Dr. Werner Schuster, 21 June 1991, Plenarprotokoll 12/35, p. 2966.
In 1997, the Government of Germany reiterated the principles contained in a general declaration made in 1984, whereby “thefts and destruction of cultural property by the Nazi regime as well as the removal of cultural property by the Soviet Union during and after the Second World War were breaches of international law”. Furthermore, it pointed out that the basic principles of the protection of cultural property are not only binding upon the vanquished but also upon the victor.
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Answer by the government to a question in Parliament, BT-Drucksache 13/8111, 27 June 1997, p. 7.
The theft of cultural property committed by the German Nationalist-Socialist regime during the Second World War, as well as the transporting of cultural objects from Germany to Russia by the Soviet Union after the Second World War, represent violations of international law.
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by the Government, Plenarprotokoll 13/221, 4 March 1998.
It was reported that during the Gulf War, large amounts of cultural property, including almost the entire contents of the Kuwait National Museum, were removed to Baghdad but later returned.
Iraq, Identical letters dated 5 March 1991 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the UN Security Council, annexed to Identical letters dated 5 March 1991 to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22330, 5 March 1991, p. 2.
Mr. J. Richard Foran, Assistant Secretary-General and official responsible for coordinating the return of [Kuwaiti] property, visited Iraq twice during the month of May 1991. The competent Iraqi authorities expressed their readiness to hand over the Kuwaiti property of which Iraq had already notified the Secretariat of the United Nations … Mr. Foran also undertook a wide-ranging field visit and saw for himself the … museum antiquities and books that will be returned to Kuwait immediately [after] an agreement is reached establishing a location for the handing over, it being understood that it is this property whose handing over Mr. Foran has determined should have priority at the present stage. The same procedures will doubtless be applied to other Kuwaiti property.
Iraq, Letter dated 8 June 1991 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to a number of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the States members of the UN Security Council, annexed to Letter dated 16 August 1991 addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22957, 16 August 1991, Annex II, § 4.
In a letter to the UN Secretary-General in September 1994, Iraq claimed that it had returned all the Kuwaiti property in its possession, “having nothing else whatsoever to return”.
Iraq, Letter dated 26 September 1994 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1994/1099, 27 September 1994, p. 1.
In 1997, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, Iraq declared, in response to allegations by Kuwait that Iraqi soldiers had robbed and looted Kuwaiti cultural property during the Gulf War, that all the cultural property taken out of Kuwait by Iraq had either been returned or would be in the future.
Iraq, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.55, 25 November 1997, p. 20.
In execution of UN [S]ecurity [C]ouncil related resolutions, and within the efforts of the Iraqi [M]inistry of [F]oreign [A]ffairs to close down the file of Kuwaiti property seized by the previous regime in 1990, the Kuwaiti side was handed over 27 boxes containing the archives of Kuwait Radio and two books belonging to Kuwait [U]niversity on June 27, 2012 at the HQ [headquarters] of the Kuwaiti [M]inistry of [F]oreign [A]ffairs.
Iraq, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Handing Over of Kuwaiti Property”, Press Release, 8 July 2012.
Iraq has informed the UN [of] its intention to return national Kuwait[i] archives found in Iraqi territories. This was stated in a letter addressed by Hamid Al-Bayati, Iraq’s ambassador to the UN, to the head of [the] UN [S]ecurity [C]ouncil[,] stating that Iraq has formed a ministerial committee to coordinate with the [S]tate of Kuwait regarding the return of its national archives. He added that the [G]overnment of Iraq had officially informed the Kuwaiti embassy in Baghdad of [the] finding of 136 microfilm tapes containing official archives of Kuwait, adding that such tapes were handed over to the Iraqi [F]oreign [M]inister by an Iraqi citizen.
Iraq, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Iraq informs the UN [of] its intent to return found Kuwaiti archives”, Press Release, 23 December 2012.
In 1997, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, Kuwait reiterated the allegation that Iraqi soldiers had robbed and looted Kuwaiti cultural property during the Gulf War, including manuscripts and historical documents, adding that many treasures which had been returned had been damaged. He then appealed to the international community to urge the return of Kuwait’s cultural property.
Kuwait, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/52/PV.55, 25 November 1997, p. 15.
the utmost importance to the return by Iraq of all the official documents looted by Iraqi forces from the Office of the Amir, the Office of the Crown Prince, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. No price can compensate for such documents.
Kuwait, Letter dated 6 March 1995 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/1995/184, 7 March 1995, p. 2; see also UN Secretary-General, Report on the return of Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, UN Doc. S/1996/1042, 16 December 1996, p. 1 and Second report pursuant to paragraph 14 of resolution 1284 (1999), UN Doc. S/2000/575, 14 June 2000, § 17(a).
During the diplomatic conference which led to the adoption of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, Norway proposed that “restitution cannot, however, be required later than twenty years after the object has got into the hands of the present holder, this holder having acted in good faith in acquiring it”. The proposal was not adopted by the conference.
Jirí Toman, The Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, Dartmouth and UNESCO Publishing, Hants and Paris, 1996, p. 345.
Upon ratification of the 1954 Hague Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property, Norway entered a reservation whereby “restitution of cultural property in accordance with the provisions of Sections I and II of the Protocol could not be required more than twenty years from the date on which the property in question had come into the possession of a holder acting in good faith”. In 1979, Norway withdrew this reservation.
In March 2001, the Russian Federation and Belgium reached an agreement on the return to Belgium of the military archives stolen by the Nazis during the Second World War and then taken to Moscow by Soviet forces. The Russian authorities accepted to return the archives to Belgium, provided that they be compensated for the cost of having maintained them.
Ch. Laporte, “Les archives belges quittent Moscou”, Le Soir, 24 March 2001.
In 1999, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, the United Arab Emirates called on Iraq to return Kuwaiti cultural property.
United Arab Emirates, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/54/PV.7, 21 September 1999, p. 36.
In 1991, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 686, in which, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it demanded that Iraq “immediately begin to return all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, the return to be completed in the shortest possible period”.
UN Security Council, Res. 686, 2 March 1991, § 2(d), voting record: 11-1-3.
The same demand was implicitly reiterated the same year in Resolution 687, in which the Security Council requested that the UN Secretary-General report on the steps taken to facilitate the return of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq.
UN Security Council, Res. 687, 3 April 1991, § 15, voting record: 12-1-2.
In a resolution adopted in 1999 on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, the UN Security Council, recalling Resolutions 686 and 687 of 1991, noted “with regret” that Iraq had still not complied fully with its obligation to return in the shortest possible time all Kuwaiti property it had seized, and requested that the UN Secretary-General “report every six months on the return of all Kuwaiti property, including archives, seized by Iraq”.
UN Security Council, Res. 1284, 17 December 1999, preamble and § 14, voting record: 11-0-4.
Decides that all Member States shall take appropriate steps to facilitate the safe return to Iraqi institutions of Iraqi cultural property and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific, and religious importance illegally removed from the Iraq National Museum, the National Library, and other locations in Iraq since the adoption of resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, including by establishing a prohibition on trade in or transfer of such items and items with respect to which reasonable suspicion exists that they have been illegally removed, and calls upon the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Interpol, and other international organizations, as appropriate, to assist in the implementation of this paragraph.
UN Security Council, Res. 1483, 22 May 2003, § 7, voting record: 14-0-0-1.
26. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, return immediately all documents and papers that were taken away from the Sharia Islamic Court in occupied Jerusalem, to the officials of the said Court.
UN General Assembly, Res. 46/47, 9 December 1991, Part A, §§ 8(h) and 25–26, voting record: 96-5-52-13.
6. Welcomes the most recent efforts made by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for the protection of the cultural heritage of countries in conflict, including the safe return to those countries of cultural property and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific and religious importance that have been illegally removed, and calls upon the international community to contribute to these efforts.
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/17, 3 December 2003, preamble and §§ 4–6, adopted without a vote.
9. Welcomes the most recent efforts made by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for the protection of the cultural heritage of countries in conflict, including the safe return to those countries of cultural property and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific and religious importance that have been illegally removed, and calls upon the international community to contribute to these efforts.
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/52, 4 December 2006, preamble and §§ 7–9, adopted without a vote.
Aware of the urgent need to establish standards for the restitution and return of movable property forming part of the cultural heritage of peoples after it has been stolen or illicitly exported, and for its protection and preservation.
The return of the property has commenced and, to date, properties of the Central Bank of Kuwait, the Central Library of Kuwait, the National Museum of Kuwait, the Kuwait News Agency … have been returned. A number of additional items are ready for return and the process is continuing. In addition, Kuwait has submitted lists of properties from other ministries, corporations and individuals that are being pursued. The Iraqi and Kuwaiti officials involved with the return of property have extended maximum cooperation to the United Nations to facilitate the return.
UN Secretary-General, Further report on the status of compliance by Iraq with the obligations placed upon it under certain of the Security-Council resolutions relating to the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/23687, 7 March 1992; see also “Kuwait’s Art Comes Home”, The Washington Post, 17 February 1992.
In 2000, in a report on the return of Kuwaiti property from Iraq, the UN Secretary-General confirmed that, although Iraq had returned a substantial quantity of property since the end of the Gulf War, there remained “many items which Iraq is under obligation to return to Kuwait”. In this respect, he stressed that “priority should be given to the return by Iraq of the Kuwaiti archives … and museum items”.
UN Secretary-General, Second report pursuant to paragraph 14 of resolution 1284 (1999), UN Doc. S/2000/575, 14 June 2000, §§ 17(a) and 20.
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the destruction and desecration of the Islamic historical and cultural relics and shrines in the occupied Azeri territories resulting from the Republic of Armenia’s aggression against the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Islamic Summit Conference recalled that the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property “prohibits the confiscation of cultural assets moved to the territories of other countries”.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 259.

References: § 67
 § 68
 § 4
 § 17
 § 2
 § 15
 § 14
 § 7
 § 259