International Law and Protecting World Heritage

by Richard Scriven

The International Criminal Court Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi case in 2016 was a landmark ruling as it was solely concerned with the destruction of cultural heritage as a war crime. It was a crucial international criminal law case that highlighted the importance of protecting cultural heritage during armed conflict. It recognised the devastating impact of such destruction on communities and their identity. While international attention is rightly focused on the human toll of on-going conflicts, there is concurrent irreparable harm to cultural treasures.

In 2012, Islamist groups took control of the city of Timbuktu in Mali. One of these groups, Ansar Dine, imposed a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law. Al-Mahdi, a local commander, intentionally led attacks against historic and religious monuments as they were deemed to be heretical. These attacks drew international condemnation as they included the destruction of nine mausoleums and a mosque that were part of Timbuktu's UNESCO World Heritage site. The designation of World Heritage status recognises the outstanding universal value to humanity of a location.

Reflecting the serious nature of this transgression, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for al-Mahdi. He pled guilty to the crimes and he was sentenced to nine years imprisonment, which was later reduced to seven years on appeal. Also, a reparations order was made for members of the local community directly affected. His conviction and sentencing were seen as a significant step forward in the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflict.

The case is extremely significant for several reasons. Firstly, it demonstrated that the destruction of cultural heritage can constitute a war crime. The case recognised the devastating impact of such destruction on communities and their identity. The judges emphasised this point when saying that ‘destroying the mausoleums, to which the people of Timbuktu had an emotional attachment, was a war activity aimed at breaking the soul of the people of Timbuktu’. As the offence involved the damage of World Heritage sites, it was also a loss to all humanity. There was, nonetheless, a caveat in the judgment, with the court acknowledging that although these were serious crimes, the target was property, which is a lesser crime than attacks on people.

Secondly, the case recognised the range of victims that were affected by the crime. It outlined three broad categories of victims: the residents of Timbuktu, the Malian people, and the people of the international community. Although the loss of these structures was felt more locally, it was nonetheless an assault on cultural and spiritual artefacts that belonged to all humanity. The grant of reparations to people in Timbuktu is seen as an important development in acknowledging the impacts of cultural heritage crimes. Also, UNESCO separately coordinated the reconstruction of the mausoleums which were destroyed.

Finally, the case highlights the on-going destruction of heritage in armed conflicts. Prominent examples include the wide scale razing of ancient monuments by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as well as the alleged systematic targeting of Ukraine’s cultural and artistic sites by Russian forces. The wide scale destruction in Gaza has inevitably led to the erasure of Palestinian cultural properties. Although different from the loss of human life, the loss of heritage is a significant assault on the identity and dignity of a people. The Al-Mahdi case shows us that international legal bodies can hold individuals accountable for heritage crimes, however it is yet to be seen if his case was the beginning of a new form of justice or an exception.