1

2.SC

C70/14/2.SC/2 Paris, June 2014 Original English

Limited distribution

Subsidiary Committee of the Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of

Cultural Property (UNESCO, Paris, 1970)

Second session Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, Rooms XI-XII

30 June, 1 and 2 July 2014

Provisional agenda item 2: Adoption of the summary records of the first session of the Subsidiary Committee

Decision required: paragraph 2

2

1. This document contains the summary records of the first session of the Subsidiary

Committee of the Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property (1970), held at the UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, from 2 to 3 July 2013.

2. The Subsidiary Committee may wish to adopt the following decision:

DRAFT DECISION 2.SC 2 The Subsidiary Committee of the Meeting of States Parties, 1. Having examined document C70/14/2.SC/2; 2. Adopts the summary records of the Subsidiary Committee’s first session contained in

this document.

3

SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE SUBSIDIARY COMMITTEE 1. The First Session of the Subsidiary Committee of the Meeting of States Parties was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris on 2 and 3 July 2013, following the Extraordinary Meeting of States Parties to the UNESCO 1970 Convention, held on 1 July 2013. 2. All of the eighteen newly elected Members States of the Subsidiary Committee were present at the Session1. As to States Parties observers to the Subsidiary Committee and States not party to the 1970 Convention, a majority of delegations assisting in the Extraordinary Meeting of the States Parties to the 1970 Convention on 1 July, participated as well to the First Session of the Subsidiary Committee as Observers. 3. The session was conducted in both English and French, the two working languages of the Subsidiary Committee, and the Cultural Heritage Protection Treaties Section provided the Secretariat for the meeting. 4. During the first day of the Session (2 July 2013) the Subsidiary Committee elected its Bureau, adopted the agenda, and finally, and examined and adopted the Rules of Procedure. The second day (3 July 2013) was dedicated to a consideration of the draft Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the 1970 Convention and the adoption of the Decisions of the Subsidiary Committee.

[Tuesday 2 July 2013, morning session]

OPENING OF THE SESSION 5. The Assistant Director-General for Culture opened the meeting and expressed the satisfaction of the Director-General over the creation of the Committee, in charge of providing continuous monitoring and guidance to the Convention. He stated that, in forty three years, only three Meetings of the State Parties to the 1970 Convention were held, the third of which took place on the previous day. He also emphasized the fundamental role of the Session since its mission was to adopt the Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee and consider for the first time the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1970 Convention. The latter were prepared by the Secretariat of the 1970 Convention with extremely limited human resources. 6. After a brief introduction by the Secretariat, concerning the practicall aspects of the Session, the Assistant Director-General invited the Committee members to consider the election of its Chairperson and announced Mexico’s candidacy for the presidency, which had been received by the Secretariat. ITEM 1: ELECTION OF THE BUREAU Document C70/13/1.SC/1

1 Greece, Italy and Turkey from Regional Group I; Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania from Regional Group II; Ecuador, Mexico and Peru from Regional Group III; China, Japan and Pakistan from Regional Group V; Chad, Madagascar and Nigeria from Regional Group V(a) and Egypt, Morocco and Oman from Regional Group V(b) according to the Resolution C70/13/Extra.MSP/4 of the Extraordinary Meeting of States Parties to the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

4

Decision DECISION 1.SC 1 7. Eleven delegations expressed themselves in favour of the nomination of the Mexican Representative, Mr Mauricio Escanero. Egypt, Bulgaria and Nigeria supported Mexico on behalf of their Electoral Groups. Peru pointed out that the candidature of Mexico was presented by the Latin-American Group and thanked other delegations for their support. Japan suggested that Mexico was the most appropriate candidate for the chairpersonship of the Committee at its first session. Italy and Greece expressed their pleasure over this election.

8. After Mr Escanero’s nomination was approved by acclamation, the newly elected Chairperson joined the podium and was invited by the Assistant Director-General to pronounce a welcome speech. He thanked everyone for their trust, announced his intention to guide the work of the Committee in a constructive way, and proposed to elect other members of the Bureau of the Committee.

9. Bulgaria, China, Egypt (proposed by Morocco), and Nigeria were subsequently elected Vice-Chairpersons of the Subsidiary Committee of the Meeting of States Parties by acclamation. A Greek Representative, Ms Artemis Papathanassiou, accepted the role of Rapporteur and joined the podium2. ITEM 2: ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA OF THE FIRST SESSION Document C70/13/1.SC/2/REV Decision DECISION 1.SC 2 10. After the election of the Bureau, the Chairperson invited the members of the Committee to consider the adoption of the Provisional Agenda of the Session3, keeping in mind the functions of the Committee, as provided for in Article 14.6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of States Parties to the 1970 Convention, adopted in June 20124.

11. Since there were neither suggestions nor objections on the Provisional Agenda, the Chairperson proposed to formally adopt it and immediately start the examination of the draft Rules of Procedure for the Subsidiary Committee, item 3 of the newly adopted agenda.

ITEM 3: ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE Document C70/13/1.SC/3 Decision DECISION 1.SC 3 2 Decision C70/13/1.SC/1 of the Subsidiary Committee of the Meeting of States Parties to the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. 3 Decision C70/13/1.SC/2 of the Subsidiary Committee. 4 Article 14.6 states: “The functions of the Committee are: a) to promote the purposes of the Convention, as set forth in the Convention; b) to review national reports presented to the General Conference by the States Parties to the Convention; c) to exchange best practices, and prepare and submit to the Meeting of the States Parties recommendations and guidelines that may contribute to the implementation of the Convention; d) to identify problem areas arising from the implementation of the Convention, including issues relating to the protection and return of cultural property; e) to initiate and maintain co-ordination with the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation in relation to capacity building measures combating illicit traffic in cultural property; f) to report to the Meeting of States Parties on the activities it has carried out.

5

12. Before opening the floor, the Chairperson asked the Secretariat to give preliminary remarks concerning the structure and the modalities of the Rules of Procedure. It was then briefly explained that the draft document, prepared by the Secretariat, was divided in 10 parts and based on the Rules of Procedure of other Intergovernmental Committees of the UNESCO Culture Sector, such as the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (under the 1999 Second Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention), the Committee for Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (under the 2003 Convention), and the Committee for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (under the 2005 Convention). 13. The methodology, suggested by the Chairperson, was to discuss and to adopt the proposal rule by rule. Discussions on draft rule 1 14. The first amendment to the Rule 1 proposed by Peru consisted of including the functions of the Committee, as formulated in the Rules of Procedure of the meeting of States Parties to the 1970 Convention in 2012, in a new Article 1.2. Both Italy and the Chairperson expressed their agreement vis-a-vis the proposal of Peru; Italy, however, suggested introducing a separate Rule dedicated to the functions of the Committee, instead of introducing “1.2” into Rule 1. Peru accepted the idea of Italy, and a new first Chapter, named “Functions of the Committee”, was created. It met no objections from any of the Committee members.

15. The issue of the conformity of the terms of office of the Committee Members, set forth in Rule 1.2 and 1.3 of the Secretariat’s draft to the decision adopted by Meeting of States Parties, was raised by Ecuador. The Assistant Director-General for Culture and the Chairperson invited the Legal Adviser to give a clarification. The Legal Adviser began by recalling the text of Rule 1.3 as formulated in the Secretariat’s draft. He confirmed that the text of the Rule was correct and corresponded fully to the decision adopted the day before by the Meeting of States Parties. Romania proposed to amend Rule 1.3 by adding the election year of 2015 to its text. The Chairperson, after a consultation with the Secretariat, announced that the point of Romania was clear but would require subsequent amendments to the Rules of Procedure and, therefore, was not quite appropriate. Romania did not object. Thus, Rule 1 was not changed compared to its “original” version. Discussions on draft rule 2 16. The adoption of Rule 2 gave rise to a debate on the role of Observers and revealed a divergence of opinions among the members of the Committee. 17. Greece was first to speak on the amendment of Rule 2.3, suggesting to add the words “any observer to the Committee” as (2) preceding “any State Party not represented at the Committee.” Pakistan questioned the rationale of Greek proposal and asked why the Member States should be put at the same level as the Observers; Bulgaria declared that it was against the amendment and indicated its preference for the original draft. Peru proposed to replace the entire Rule 2.3, suggested by the Secretariat, with its own version of Rule 2.3, as follows: Le Comité se réunit en session extraordinaire à la demande de 2/3 au moins des Etats Membres, emphasizing that the same formula is used in the Rules of Procedure of other UNESCO Conventions.

18. Greece, Pakistan, Italy, Egypt, China, Madagascar, Nigeria, and Turkey expressed their wish to retain Rule 2.3 as originally proposed. The main arguments were that

a) requesting an Extraordinary Session and approving it are different procedures that

should not be confused;

6

b) not only States Parties of the Committee and the Convention, but also UNESCO represented by its Director-General should have a possibility to convene an extraordinary session;

c) the architecture of Rule 2 is well-balanced since 2.3 and 2.5 complement one another: one defines the modalities for requesting the Session and the other defines its approval5.

19. In order to arrive at a consensus, Peru agreed to withdraw its amendment. It suggested, however, putting the original 2.5 immediately after 2.3. Egypt was against the change of order but specified that it would not object if there was the consensus to retain the proposal. Finally, the Chairperson concluded the debate by saying the common feeling was to keep the Rule as originally proposed. No one objected. Discussions on draft rule 3 20. After a short break, the Committee resumed its work with the consideration of Rule 3. As no comments were made on it, the Rule was adopted. Discussions on draft rule 4 21. Regarding Rule 4, China raised an issue concerning the organization of the annual sessions of the Committee in the years when it occurs at the same time as the biennial Meeting of States Parties.

22. Upon the invitation of the Chairperson, the Assistant Director-General for Culture explained that for practical reasons future sessions are envisaged to be convened according to the model tested in July 2013, i.e. they will follow directly the Meeting of States Parties. Discussions on draft rule 5 23. The discussion of Rule 5 was largely inspired by the amendments, proposed by Peru. Its first suggestion was to amend the language of 5.2. Peru proposed to change “shall appoint” [désignent] with “are encouraged to appoint” [sont encouragés], pointing out that it is the prerogative of the States, and of no one else, to decide whom to appoint as a representative. Pakistan and Ecuador fully agreed with the proposal of Peru. Mexico not only agreed but added that another option could be a complete deletion of 5.2. This latter was supported by Morocco and by Peru. Turkey was the only State to object to the above-mentioned amendment. The Legal Adviser noted that other Committees’ Rules of Procedure had the same wording as proposed in the Secretariat’s draft, while admitting that the States Parties were free to amend any wording. Finally, 5.2 was deleted without any objections from the States Parties of the Committee.

24. Another proposal by Peru was to introduce the following wording into Rule 5: “Afin de garantir, au sein du Comité, une représentation équitable des différentes régions géographiques et culturelles, le comité affecte dans son budget une somme destinée à couvrir les frais de participation à ses sessions et celles de son Bureau, des représentants des pays en voie de développement, mais seulement pour des spécialistes dans les domaines visés par la Convention”. Morocco admitted the advantage of the idea but asked for clarification of the meaning of the terms: spécialistes dans les domaines visés par la Convention since it would presumably give to the Committee a competence to veto or reject a representative, appointed by a State, on the basis of his/her professional competence. 5 Rule 2.5 reads: “The requested extraordinary session shall be convened if the proposal is approved in writing by a two-thirds majority of the Members of the Committee.

7

25. The Assistant Director-General for Culture also recognized the necessity of the representation for the developing countries but reminded the meeting that the 1970 Convention Subsidiary Committee, unlike other Committees, did not have its own budget. He proposed that a possible way to solve the issue was the establishment of a Fund, otherwise the proposal of Peru could not be retained in the form proposed. Peru agreed to change its initial proposal. Instead of le comité affecte dans son budget une somme, the Representative of Peru proposed : la Directrice Générale de l’UNESCO, dans les disponibilités financières de l’Organisation, pourrait attribuer une somme financière pour aider la participation des experts. Bulgaria and Italy recognized that the intention of Peru was worthy but the proposal was lacking coherence from a legal point of view. Pakistan expressed its solidarity with the intention of Peru and proposed to address the Legal Adviser in order to find a solution. The Legal Adviser confirmed the point of view expressed by the Assistant Director-General for Culture – that the Committee may not use budget that does not exist. Therefore, he suggested either to establish a budget or to subsequently amend the provisional Rules of Procedure.

26. Before the end of the Session, the Chairperson gave the floor to Observers. The Islamic Republic of Iran proposed a different wording for the proposal of Peru. France suggested adopting a recommendation of the Committee along the lines of the Peruvian proposal instead of putting it into the Rules of Procedure of the Committee. The suggestion was supported by Greece and by Peru. Finally, the Chairperson announced that Rule 5 was adopted as amended.

[Tuesday 2 July 2013, Afternoon Session]

Discussions on draft rule 6 27. Ecuador, supported by Peru, proposed to add a provision regarding the criteria of geographical distribution. In this way, Ecuador’s proposal read: “The Committee may at any time, taking account of the criteria of geographical distribution, invite public or private organizations to participate in its meetings for consultation on specific matters.” Japan pointed out that the essence of the Rule was aimed at “specific matters”, thereby a provision on geographical distribution would be inappropriate in case of a hypothetical consultation on specific regional issues and invited the Committee members to reflect on the formula in order to find a better solution. The Assistant Director-General’s clarification confirmed this view, highlighted by Japan that the Rule regarded specific matters and not the consultants of the 1970 Convention in general.

28. To reach at a consensus, the Chairperson proposed adding “as appropriate” in order to avoid excluding Ecuador’s suggestion while clarifying it in terms of relevance to specific matters. The Chairperson’s proposal was supported by Italy. Finally, the Rule was adopted as amended. Discussions on draft rule 7 29. Rule 7 was adopted without particular comments or amendment proposals. Discussions on draft rule 8 30. The discussion of Rule 8 started with the proposal of Peru, supported by Ecuador and Mexico, to amend the language of 8.1. Peru proposed “The provisional agenda of the sessions of the Committee shall be prepared by the Bureau with the assistance of the UNESCO Secretariat.” Turkey declared that it was happy with the Rule proposed by the Secretariat. Japan asked for clarification from the Legal Adviser; the latter pronounced that the final agenda is adopted by the Committee itself, though both options could exist. Finally, 8.1 was adopted in the version of Peru.

8

Discussions on draft rules 9 and 10 31. Rule 9 and Rule 10 were adopted without particular comments or amendment proposals. Discussions on draft rule 11 32. A long debate among the members of the Committee with the participation of the Observers arose regarding Rule 11. Canada was first to point out a contradiction in the Rule. Under 4.1, “the Committee shall determine at each session, in consultation with the DG, the date and the place of the next session.” Meanwhile, Rule 11.2 provides that it will be the Bureau who “shall fix the dates, times and order of business of meetings”. The Assistant Director-General for Culture suggested to eliminate “fix the dates, times and order of business of meetings” from the Rule in order to harmonize it with 4.1. 33. The Legal Adviser proposed to add some wording that would specify that 11.2 means fixing dates, times, and orders of business of the Bureau’s own meetings and not the entire Committee’s meetings, in order to avoid confusion and doubts. The Chairperson admitted that he was confused and expressed doubts that 11.2 referred to the Bureau’s meetings, as suggested by the Legal Advisor. The Assistant Director-General for Culture reminded everyone about the potential costs of the Bureau’s meetings, if they were to be organized in future. Pakistan suggested e-meetings in order to deal with the logistical constraints and reduce the costs.

34. The interpretation of Bulgaria, supported by Peru, was that the wording of 11.2 in the original draft referred to the Committee’s meetings. Therefore, it suggested deleting “fix dates and times”, as initially suggested by the Assistant Director-General for Culture. In addition, Bulgaria made a stylistic suggestion to split a long sentence into two parts to facilitate its comprehension. The proposal of Bulgaria was supported both by the Chair and the Committee and was adopted as amended. Discussions on draft rules 12 to 16 35. The adoption of Rules 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 proceeded without particular debates. Two proposals for deletion were submitted by the Chairperson. One regarded the deletion of entire 12.2 that enabled the election of a new Bureau in case of Extraordinary Session. The other aimed to eliminate a provision within 13.1: The Chairperson shall not vote but may instruct another member of his delegation to vote on his behalf. Both were accepted by the Committee. Discussions on draft rule 17 36. Morocco asked for clarifications of the term “public” in Rule 17. Explanations were given to the Moroccan Representative first by the Assistant Director-General and then by the Legal Adviser. The Assistant Director-General described “public” meetings first by distinguishing them from closed meetings and second by describing them as including Committee members, Observer States, and the Secretariat. He additionally noted that the concept of “public” has evolved, though, due to technological advances such as web-streaming. The Legal Adviser added that the original meaning of “public” in the early days of UNESCO meant that anyone with a security badge could sit in the audience, including journalists. However they could not necessarily take the floor. He also agreed with the Assistant Director-General regarding the evolution of the meaning of the term “public”. Finally, he added that the most important point on this issue was that, under Rule 18, the Committee can at any time decide it wishes to restrict participation in the meeting. Discussions on draft rule 18

9

37. The adoption of Rule 18 was delayed due to the fact that a consensus on the presence of Observers during eventual private meetings of the Committee was difficult to reach among the Committee Members and the Observer States. First, Turkey asked for clarification regarding the delay of informing the States non-Members of the Committee about the decisions taken by the Committee during its private meetings. Extensive clarifications were given by the Legal Adviser. The latter addressed the occasional confusion between “session” and “meeting” by defining a meeting as a gathering of the body during the day. He noted that the definition was originally taken from other treaty texts and that, in practice, it means that if the committee has a private meeting on one day, the subsequent meeting would be on the next day - not the next session, two years later. The Legal Adviser also commented that, originally, a session was a series of meetings during which a body met and the meetings were the gatherings during the day. Finally, he pointed out that Rule 18.1 includes necessarily the members of the Committee but they can also choose to include a limited number of any experts or observers they want to involve in the meeting. The Rule was adopted by the Committee. 38. However, after the adoption, the USA asked for clarifications concerning “exceptional circumstances”, mentioned in 18.1. The USA also asked if the Observers could be refused, under Rule 18, to participate in private or “closed” meetings. The Legal Adviser clarified that “exceptional circumstances” might be a discussion of a complex and sensitive issue seeking the restitution of a property where it is deemed better not to have the general public present. Concerning the possibility for Observers to be refused entry, he stated that the Committee is sovereign and is supposed to take its own decision and interpret its own rules.

39. Peru pointed out that the Rule was already adopted by the members of the Committee when the USA – an Observer State - interfered. It expressed its consent with the interpretation of the Legal Adviser as for the sovereignty of the Committee. Nigeria, Pakistan, and Bolivia expressed their full support of the point by Peru and The Chairperson reminded the meeting that it was legitimate to go back to adopted articles since no single adoption was definitive before the adoption of the entire Rules of Procedure.

40. Italy and Switzerland stated that they understand the concerns expressed by the USA. Italy stressed that the Committee should be as inclusive as possible, since its membership is limited. A member of the Italian Delegation proposed the following amendment to Rule 18: “When, in exceptional circumstances, the Committee decides to hold private meeting, it shall determine the persons, who, in addition to the representatives of the States Members of the Committee and the States Parties to the Convention shall be present”. Italy also proposed to change 7.1 accordingly. Both proposals were categorically rejected by Nigeria. 41. Greece proposed to consider Rule 60 of the Rules of Procedure of the UNESCO General Conference as a source of inspiration: “When it is decided, in exceptional circumstances, to hold a private meeting, all persons shall be excluded except the members of those delegations that are entitled to vote, representatives and observers entitled to participate without voting in the deliberations of the bodies concerned and the members of the Secretariat whose presence is necessary”. The Legal Adviser confirmed the relevance of Greek proposal and mentioned equally Article 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the Executive Board that could be foreseen as an option: “The Board decides the terms of the persons who shall be present”. He concluded that both “exclusive” and “inclusive” options existed and could be implemented. 42. France pointed out that the fundamental principle of universality should be respected by the States Members of the Committee, meaning the participation of the Observer States in their meetings. A breakthrough in the discussion was reached when Germany raised the question of competence with regards to the Committee’s Rules of Procedure and quoted, accordingly, Rule

10

14.8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of States Parties6 pointing out that the Subsidiary Committee may not go beyond the framework set for it by the States Parties Conference. The Legal Adviser confirmed the interpretation of Germany. The Chairperson concluded that the points made by Observers were relevant and that international cooperation was the keystone of the activities and the spirit of the 1970 Convention. On the Rule 18, consensus was reached that all States Parties to the 1970 Convention non-Members of the Committee would have right to participate in the sessions of the Committee as Observers. Finally, 18.2 and 18.3 were adopted without changes, and 18.1 was adopted as amended. Discussions on draft rules 19 and 20 43. Rule 19 and Rule 20 concerned the ad hoc Consultative Bodies and Subsidiary Bodies to the Committee respectively and defined their composition and terms of reference. 44. France raised the question about the nature of the ad hoc consultative organs, mentioned in the Rule 19 and the Subsidiary Bodies to the Committee, described in Rule 20 of the Secretariat’s draft. Upon the invitation of the Chairperson, the Legal Adviser explained that Subsidiary Bodies are typically composed of a smaller number of members of the main body, i.e. of the Committee itself. As for the ad hoc Consultative Bodies, their membership is more flexible and can include States that have not yet ratified or will not ratify the Convention but wish to provide input or guidance. He also added that it is the Committee that decides on the existence of both bodies and having them in the Rules of Procedure does not necessarily mean creating them.

45. Peru proposed to delete Rule 19. The Chairperson expressed his personal view that having a possibility of creating both Subsidiary and Consultative bodies would allow for better flexibility for the Committee but emphasized that the Committee was to decide on the issue. The proposal of Peru to delete Rule 19 was supported by Greece. Greece, however, added that another rule could be provided in another place that would permit requesting an ad hoc advisement or consultation by independent experts, as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.

46. Mexico made a proposal to delete Rule 20.3, which contained provisions on the election of the Bureau of a Subsidiary Body of the Committee. The arguments of Mexico, supported by Turkey, were that the provisions of Rule 20.3 would bureaucratize the work of this hypothetical body and result in wasted time. The proposal was supported by the Committee, and Rule 20.3 was successfully deleted. When it went to Observer States, the Netherlands proposed to amend 20.2 to create a possibility for inclusion the States Parties to the Convention non-Parties to the Committee into the Subsidiary Bodies of the Committee, which the composition and the terms of reference were originally defined in Rule 20.2. The proposal of the Netherlands was either to change the wording or to eliminate the last sentence of Rule 20.2

47. Peru, Italy, Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, Ecuador, and to a lesser extent, the Chairperson, objected to the proposal of the Netherlands. As a result the Rule remained as it was. The main arguments were that:

a) the membership in the Subsidiary Body must be restricted, otherwise it would not be a Subsidiary Body stricto sensus anymore;

b) the spirit of the Subsidiary Body is to facilitate the work of the Committee and not to complicate it;

c) the Observers are not obliged to be part of the Subsidiary Body in order to attend its meetings.

6 Rule 14.8 states: States Parties to the Convention, which are not members of the Committee, and other Member States of UNESCO, may participate in the meetings of the Committee, as observers.

11

84. Finally, Rule 19 “Ad hoc Consultative Bodies” was entirely deleted, as already mentioned. As for the old Rule 20, it became the new Rule 19 and was adopted without amendment. Discussions on draft rule 20 (old 21) 85. Pakistan proposed to amend 20.3 in the following way: “The representatives of an Organization, individuals or Observers, referred to in Rules 6 and 7, may address a meeting, with a prior consent of the Organization, after the Member States have taken the floor and with a time limit of 2 minutes”. Italy and Greece spoke about more flexibility and the necessity to avoid strict time-limits. Greece argued that it was the prerogative of the Chairperson to decide on the minutes for each speaker. Italy preferred to keep the Rule as it was. 86. On the contrary, the proposal of Pakistan was supported by Nigeria, which proposed to reinforce it by the phrase: “after the Committee Members have completed their debates.” Peru and the Chairperson considered that such formulation left much to be desired from legal point of view and asked clarifications from Nigeria. Nigeria gave clarifications that did not satisfy Italy; finally the Chairperson suggested to change the term ”debates” to “interventions”, the term was suitable for everyone. 87. The Netherlands also intervened on Rule 20. It proposed the amendment of the order of the priority for the speakers, established by Rule 20.3. According to the Netherlands, States Parties should have preceded in the text organizations and individuals. The proposal of the Netherlands was supported by Pakistan, Greece and France with minor adjustments. The final version of Rule 20 was adopted by the Committee as amended. Discussions on draft rules 21 (old 22) to 48 (old 49) 88. Rules 21 to 48 were adopted without particular debates and several details were added by Greece, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Germany, and the Chair. Other topics discussed 89. Ecuador raised a crucial issue regarding the duration of the mandate of the Bureau. Solutions were to be found to two fundamental points: the moment of election (beginning or end of each session of the Committee) and the duration of the mandate of the Bureau of the Committee (one or two years). 90. In the Secretariat's draft the time of election was established at the end of the session and the duration of the mandate of the Bureau was one year. The Assistant Director-General for Culture clarified that the provisions regarding the election at the end of the session were inspired by the experience of the World Heritage Committee and that such a model would guarantee continuity in the Committee's leadership between the two sessions. 91. Canada pointed out that another option existed: to elect the Bureau at the beginning of the session and not at its end. In this case the period of the mandate of the Bureau would cover the session and the interim period before the next session. This option was inspired by ICPRCP’s and Second Protocol Intergovernmental Committee’s experience. The option proposed by Canada met with Japan's support. 92. Pakistan, followed by Mexico, proposed that the Bureau be elected for two years instead of original proposal of one year in order to provide a better continuity for the newly elected Committee. Peru, Morocco, and Ecuador supported this proposal. Nigeria stated that it is not against the continuity but the agreement should rather be found among the Committee members than in the provisions of the article. Germany pointed out that the two-year solution was

12

problematic since it would exclude 9 members of the Subsidiary Committee from election. The solution was suggested by the Assistant Director-General for Culture: two-year mandate of the Committee could be kept if the election is held at the beginning of each biennium, as proposed by Canada. It would permit all 18 members of the Committee to be eligible. The solution was considered by the Committee as the most reasonable one. 93. The Rules of Procedure of the Subsidiary Committee to the Meeting of States Parties to the UNESCO 1970 Convention were adopted on 2 July at 18.29 at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, in Room XI. The Chairperson thanked everyone for their patience and attention and closed the first day of the session.

[Wednesday 3 July 2013, Morning Session]

ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES Documents C70/13/1.SC/4 & C70/13/INF.2/REV2 Decision DECISION 1.SC 4 94. The Chairperson opened the session by announcing the Agenda item 4: “Consideration of the draft Operational Guidelines”. 95. The Secretariat introduced to the Committee the draft Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the 1970 Convention. It was recalled that neither the Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the Meeting of States Parties specifies what the content of the Operational Guidelines should be. For this reason Professor Lyndel V. Prott, a well-known specialist of the 1970 Convention, was asked to write a study as a basis for the draft Operational Guidelines. To draft those guidelines, the Secretariat also referred to the Commentary on the 1970 Convention and to the preparatory documents for the Convention. The Secretariat insisted on the fact that the Operational Guidelines are intended to be neither a new Commentary on the Convention, nor a list of national best practices. Their purpose is to assist the States Parties in the implementation of the 1970 Convention by highlighting efficient and interesting practical measures, as well as operational and legal tools. The Operational Guidelines are offered by the Secretariat as a neutral basis for the States Parties’ discussions. It was also recalled that, should a disagreement arise between States Parties, the Secretariat does not have the authority to adopt a particular interpretation of the Convention. The States Parties alone, or a judiciary or arbitrary authority chosen by them, would be able to settle such a dispute. 96. Prof. Prott also gave a brief presentation on the Operational Guidelines, to which she had greatly contributed. After having described the contemporary shape of the fight against illicit trafficking of cultural property, which is characterized by a enhanced global awareness of the problem but also increasing technological threats, she elaborated on three aspects of the Operational Guidelines: their purpose, their origin, and the difficulty posed by their legal status. The aim of the Operational Guidelines is simple: to reach a better implementation and thereby increase the efficiency of the 1970 Convention. To this end, the original purpose of this Convention was constantly kept in mind: this purpose was not to stop the art and antiquities trade altogether, but to stop the damage caused by theft, clandestine excavations, and illicit export. The difficulty pointed out by Prof. Prott regarded the legal status of the Operational Guidelines. She insisted on recalling that only the 1970 Convention was binding and that the Convention had to remain the reference text. Legal implication and legal status of the Operational Guidelines

13

101. The question of the status and objectives of the Operational Guidelines appeared as a recurrent preoccupation of the representatives who took the floor after this introduction. Pakistan considered that the document offered by the Secretariat was merely the opinion of an individual and certainly not a legal interpretation of the Convention. Italy agreed that the document’s character was more descriptive and informal than regulatory. It recalled that it was impossible for the Operational Guidelines to depart from the Convention. Peru also declared that the guidelines had no legal implication and that they were merely intended to contribute to a better implementation of the Convention. Greece pointed out that the Operational Guidelines were neither a commentary of the 1970 Convention nor a list of national best practices, and it also considered that the Operational Guidelines’ role was to assist the States Parties in the implementation of the 1970 Convention. This view was supported by Turkey and Nigeria. 102. Prof. Prott recalled that there were only two ways to set up legal standards in UNESCO – conventions and recommendations, but not guidelines. She also stated that the guidelines could be a very useful tool, whether or not they had any legal implication. Mode of proceeding 103. Echoing the general uncertainty regarding the status of the Operational Guidelines, there was some hesitation regarding the mode of proceeding with the document. Morocco requested clarification about the upcoming task of the Committee regarding the Guidelines and China and Pakistan urged the Chairperson to establish a sort of roadmap for the upcoming work. 104. Upon the proposal of Italy, seconded by Pakistan and Nigeria, the Chairperson finally decided to proceed as follows:

- the rest of the day would be dedicated to a critical reading of the draft Operational Guidelines where delegations would be able to modify or rewrite the original document;

- then, the work on this document would be continued by an informal working group, composed by the 18 Members of the Subsidiary Committee, until its next session;

- the revised draft Operational Guidelines could be adopted at the beginning of the next session of the Subsidiary Committee, which could then be dedicated to the identification of problem areas and the elaboration of recommendations.

The Chairperson encouraged the States Parties to start identifying problem areas straight away and to incorporate them into the text of the Operational Guidelines. 105. A debate focused on the role of the Observers in the informal working group. Some Members of the Subsidiary Committee, supported by Observers, considered that including them as much as possible in this process would facilitate the later stage of adoption of the revised Operational Guidelines. Other Members recalled that the role of the Observers was and should remain merely to observe the work of the Committee, not to participate in it. The text of the final Decision 1.SC 4, however, does not carry any ambiguity: the informal working group, composed of the 18 Members of the Subsidiary Committee, will consider and work on the written inputs sent by all Members and Observers by 15 October. General concerns and remarks 106. Several delegations voiced some general problems regarding the content of the Operational Guidelines. Ecuador recalled that illicit trafficking of cultural property was now the third leading source of traffic (after weapons and drugs), despite the existence of the 1970 Convention.The representative of Pakistan, giving as an example the recent sale at Christie’s in Germany of a Pakistani Fasting Buddha raised several issues: the power of auction houses, the non-retroactivity of the Convention, and the necessity of inventories that Article 7 provides for. She was supported on this last point by Italy and Nigeria. Greece wished to insist on the possibilities offered by the Secretariat (good offices, technical help, and consultation) and urged the States Parties not to

14

underestimate them. Turkey, joined by Pakistan, believed that much was in the power of States Parties to strengthen the 1970 Convention and its implementation. Nepal (observer) highlighted the fact that not all countries had the same capacity of implementing the 1970 Convention. The Assistant Director-General for Culture encouraged the States Parties to focus their action on the whole process of trafficking, and not only on its last element, i.e. the sales. He reminded them that prevention, as well as exchange and interaction between Member States, were also very important parts of their fight against illicit trafficking of cultural property. Consideration of the draft operational guidelines article by article

I. Introduction Article 1 107. Ecuador and Greece voiced a shared concern about the second paragraph of Article 1: they feared its wording carried a negative and powerless approach on the issue of divergences of opinion among Member States. They subsequently suggested deleting the whole paragraph. The Secretariat explained that this paragraph was only an introductory paragraph referring to matters of interpretation and should be read with Articles 25 and 103 of the Operational Guidelines in mind. Taking this clarification into account, Greece proposed to make an explicit reference to Article 25 or to delete the whole paragraph. Article 2 108. France (observer) considered it more appropriate to replace “decisions” with “recommendations”. Article 3 109. Ecuador, supported by Turkey and the USA (observer), thought important to add “clandestine excavations” to the enumeration of causes of loss of cultural property. It pointed out that clandestine excavations were mentioned in the Preamble of the Convention and believed that they should therefore appear in the Operational Guidelines as well. Articles 4 to 6 110. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 7 111. The USA (observer) proposed to add “clandestine excavations” at the beginning of the enumeration of causes of impoverishment of cultural heritage. Article 8 112. Greece noted that this provision repeats the exact wording of Articles 12 and 22 of the 1970 Convention, and believed that it would deserve further elaboration. The USA (observer) proposed to add “clandestine excavations” at the beginning of the enumeration of causes of loss of cultural property. Ecuador pointed out that “if necessary” should be deleted from the sentence; it considered that consultation with local authorities was an obvious step that should be made mandatory.

15

Article 9 113. Italy stressed the importance of creating police units specialized in the fight against the illicit trafficking of cultural property and the positive results that can be reached through strengthened police cooperation. On that note, Turkey proposed adding “in order to emphasize complementary works between different national units” at the end of this article, and “also” after “States Parties are encouraged to create”. Following the same idea, Greece suggested adding contacts of national authorities in charge of implementing the 1970 Convention and police units in annexes to the Operational Guidelines. Speaking from its experience of fruitful cooperation between police units and customs services, Peru thought it interesting to mention both of them in this provision. Morocco insisted on the importance of a global cooperation between police forces and mentioned one of its national laws, mandating state-created specialized police units.

Articles 10 to 19 114. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 20 115. Mexico wished to highlight this provision, dedicated to the functions of the Subsidiary Committee, as one of the main points of the Operational Guidelines. It insisted on the importance of paragraph (d) regarding the identification of problem areas arising from the implementation of the Convention and urged the Committee to take those problems into consideration in the elaboration of the Operational Guidelines. The Chairperson noted that this structural remark supported what had previously been said by Pakistan about balancing the efforts between “source countries” and “market countries”, and would be duly kept in mind. Articles 21-22 116. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 23 117. Peru believed that “At the request of at least two States Parties” was too restrictive and that auction houses should be included in this settlement mechanism in order to initiate cooperation with those principal actors of the art market. Pakistan asked whether UNESCO had ever contacted auction houses to provide them the opportunity to become partners in the fight against illicit trafficking of cultural goods, for instance by sharing data or informing States Parties when a sale is about to take place. Article 24 118. Pakistan spoke highly of the diligence demonstrated by UNESCO whenever a sale of stolen cultural property/objects is about to take place. While commending this “trigger mechanism,” Pakistan deplored the absence of technical guidelines designed to list the different options offered by UNESCO to Member States in order to prevent a sale. Germany (observer) pointed out to Pakistan that most of those options already exist and are as obvious as they are efficient. It responded to the example of the sale of objects coming from Pakistan by Christie’s in Germany: the first thing Pakistan should have done was to call Germany about this problem. The representative from Germany assured that the diplomatic method would have been very quick and efficient and would have provided for the seizure of these items, if possible under law.

16

119. Ecuador was convinced that the Secretariat has an important part to play in the implementation of the 1970 Convention. In particular, it suggested that an alert procedure be organized on the web page of the Convention in order to circulate as widely as possible any information about theft, clandestine excavation, or illicit export of cultural property. Peru proposed to specify the term “conflict” used in 24 (e) in order to refer to internal as well as international conflicts. Article 25 120. France (observer) believed that paragraph (b) should be made more explicit and refer directly to the organizations mentioned in Section I.G. Article 26 121. Greece suggested to add “and the fight against illicit trafficking of cultural property” after “expertise in the protection of cultural property”. Ecuador stressed that intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations had to act consistently with the goals of the 1970 Convention: these criteria would be a sort of filter between the States Parties and those organizations. It went on to point out that IGOs and NGOs had to be recognized by UNESCO, of course, but also in agreement with States Parties. Articles 27-28 122. Peru encouraged States Parties to update their INTERPOL databases, but added that the use of the information contained in these databases was not efficient enough to prevent illicit trafficking. It thereby suggested that INTERPOL immediately inform a State whose database had been consulted. Articles 29 to 36 123. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Articles 37-38 124. Reiterating Pakistan’s remarks on the necessity to increase cooperation with auction houses, the Netherlands (observer) noted that international art market organizations should be mentioned as partners in these provisions. Articles 39 to 44 125. Italy stressed the importance of these provisions, especially the ones concerning the UNIDROIT Convention, which provides for settling difficulties that the 1970 Convention can not deal with. Italy believed that the Subsidiary Committee’s aim is to align the UNESCO Convention with the UNIDROIT Convention to the greatest extent possible through progressive interpretations of the 1970 Convention. As an example, Italy explained that, applying the UNIDROIT Convention, priority should be given to the 1970 Convention Preamble, which mentions illicit excavations, over its Article 7, which omits such a mention. 126. On this last point, the USA (observer) reminded the States Parties that there was no need to refer to the UNIDROIT Convention concerning the clandestine excavations, as this area of concern was embedded by the UNESCO 1970 Convention. It warned the Member States against

17

such cases where they fail to recognize and implement a provision already present in the Convention. 127. Greece supported what was stated by Italy and suggested to use the wording of the model provisions elaborated by UNESCO and UNIDROIT. For instance, in Article 43, more details could be given on the definition of “undiscovered antiquities” drawing on those model provisions: cultural objects which, consistent with national law, are of importance for archaeological pre-history, history, etc. 128. Mexico insisted on the importance of developing a better link between the various Conventions that are at the disposal of States Parties; Ecuador joined in on this point – supported by the Netherlands (observer) – and mentioned, in particular, the necessity to develop international and regional instruments.

[Wednesday 3 July 2013, Afternoon Session]

II. Definition and links between heritage and State 129. Throughout the discussions on this chapter, Japan pointed out that notions of “cultural property,” “cultural objects,” “cultural item,” or “cultural heritage” were employed without distinction. It recommended that they be more precisely defined and unified. Article 47 130. The USA (observer) highlighted a weakness in the wording of this article: “cultural property considered as being important” did not include the cultural items that are still undiscovered and yet to be found. This remark was endorsed by number of States; Turkey, Pakistan, and Canada supported the idea of using categories of protected material, rather than lists and inventories, in order to include undiscovered items. Greece gave the example of its national legislation, which provides protection not according to categories, but according to the date of creation of the object. Mexico pointed out that this reflection should be linked to Article 13 (d) of the 1970 Convention, which regards the right of the State to classify and declare certain categories of cultural properties inalienable and thus of importance.

III. Assistance in the implementation of prevention measures

131. The Republic of Korea (observer) expressed some doubts about the wording of the title of Chapter III. It wondered if “prevention” should not be replaced by “Convention”, and suggested to avoid “assistance”. 132. Canada (observer) evoked the system, existing in some States, of tax benefits given to private collectors when they donate cultural items to a public institution. It considered that those States should be encouraged to ensure that those benefits are given only when the legal provenance of the object is certain. With this example, Canada warned the States Parties against believing that the trafficking chain necessarily ends in the private sector. Articles 51 to 55

18

133. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions, except for Germany (observer), who asked to add “and implementation of the Convention” at the end of the title of section III.A, or to create a new section on this subject. It wanted to draw attention to the importance not only of protecting national heritage, but also of implementing and using the Convention. Article 56 134. In view of their importance, Italy thought it necessary to reproduce the Model Provisions which are referred to in this article and Article 57. Ecuador suggested specifying that the experts mentioned should come from all regions of the world, as geographical diversity is a key factor to reach equitable solutions. Articles 57-58 135. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 59 136. Once more, the notion of inventories appeared problematic for many Member States in the context of illegal excavations, as it is by definition impossible to have an inventory of undiscovered materials. Turkey, supported by China, suggested replacing “inventories and lists” by “categories”. The USA (observer) considered that, on the whole, the word “inventory” was overused throughout the Operational Guidelines, as it is applicable only when items have already been discovered and identified. Mexico recalled that, even for a discovered site, an exhaustive inventory was almost impossible to achieve, considering the number of items present. It invited the Committee to reinterpret the term “inventory” in a less strict and demanding way.

137. To overcome the difficulty raised by inventories in the context of undiscovered sites and illegal excavations, Turkey suggested creating a new, separate chapter dedicated to un-inventoried and undiscovered cultural artifacts. It was supported by Pakistan, who underlined the impossibility of indicating the date of illegally conducted excavations, and by Greece, who also wanted to point out the case of inventoried objects lacking photographic documentation. Pakistan highlighted the ambiguity of the expression “appreciable impoverishment,” and asked on what criteria the definition of this notion should be based. At the end of the second paragraph, France (observer) wished to add “or at least not in a definitive way,” to allow for the case of temporary exportation under compulsory condition of return. Articles 60 to 62 138. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 63 139. The USA (observer) noted that this provision uses the term “requires” and refers to the Article 6 (a) and (b) of the Convention, which only says that “the States Parties undertake […]”. It wished to warn the Committee about those cases in which the Operational Guidelines use a wording more imperative than the Convention. Regarding this article and the following, Turkey suggested considering that any exportation without a certificate is illicit – except of course in States where export certificates do not exist. Articles 64 to 66 140. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions.

19

Articles 67 and 68 141. Peru, supported by Ecuador, considered that asking for export certificates should be made mandatory also for States allowing importation of cultural property on their soil. Articles 69 and 70 142. Following the same idea, Peru suggested envisaging sanctions for any person importing a cultural object without an export certificate. Articles 71 to 73 143. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 74 144. Greece expressed the opinion that States could not produce codes of ethics, considering that this competence belongs rather to international or non-governmental organizations. The States Parties, however, should adopt specific legislation criminalizing violations of those codes of ethics. Articles 75 to 80 145. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Articles 81 to 84 146. Pakistan highlighted the difficulty of identifying sellers in sales on the Internet, and asked what UNESCO could do to improve this situation. It also drew the attention of States Parties to the issue of replicas and copies, which are too often sold at very high prices, in particular on the Internet. Articles 85-86 147. Speaking from its positive experience, Peru suggested adding UNESCO as a cooperation partner in addition to the national specialized institutions.

IV. Measures concerning return or recovery Article 87 148. Mexico recalled that national legislation protecting cultural property is the first barrier against looting, but that this protection cannot be implemented if this cultural property is not internationally identified as stolen. Pakistan expressed its concern about the burden of proof and asked what the responsibility of the receiving State Party was in the case of a recovery request. Article 88 149. The States Parties made no comments on this provision. Articles 89-90

20

150. The issue of inventories once again raised concern among the Member States. Ecuador warned against the “absolutism of inventories”. Considering that taking the notion of inventory from other fields was a methodological mistake, Mexico, supported by China, suggested creating a unique, particular definition of inventories in the framework of the 1970 Convention. Turkey pointed out that scientific means had greatly evolved since 1970 and thought it interesting to encourage States Parties to consider scientific analysis to be as reasonable and reliable evidence as inventories. Articles 91-92 151. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 93 152. This article was abundantly discussed by the States Parties; Most of them expressing their difficulties in fully understanding it. Peru even considered that it was an incorrect interpretation of the Convention. Greece, joined by Nigeria, thought that “after the entry in force of the Convention” was probably a misprint, and that the only way for this article to make sense would be to replace “after” with “before.” Italy also considered that the wording proposed by the Secretariat was not satisfactory on many points. It suggested deleting “irreplaceable” and “which does reflect not reflect the strict application of the provisions of the Convention” and adding that “the mutually accepted solution should take into account all the relevant circumstances.”

153. Ecuador explained that the provision actually referred to national cultural legislations that were in force before the 1970 Convention, on the structure of which States Parties were invited to collaborate, in order to show that non-retroactivity does not legitimize illicit exportations that took place before 1970. Not legitimizing these exports appeared very important to Turkey as well as the UNIDROIT representative, who suggested making a reference to Article 10 paragraph 3 of the UNIDROIT Convention. According to this provision, the fact that the Convention is not retroactive does not by itself legitimize illicit exportations which happened before its entry into force. Germany (observer), supported by Greece and France (observer), reminded the States Parties that non-retroactivity was a general principle of international law that should not be put into question. Greece proposed to make a reference to the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP), whose mission is precisely to facilitate negotiations between States for issues that are not covered by the 1970 Convention. Articles 94 to 98 154. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 99 155. Italy pointed out that some Member States had their own national databases, so it suggested adding “and other relevant national databases” after “as for example the INTERPOL stolen works of art Database.” Article 100 156. Mexico underlined the necessity of precisely defining some important notions, such as “due diligence” and “innocent purchaser.” Articles 101 to 105

21

157. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 106 158. France (observer) wished to remind the States Parties that it was not a member of the ICPRCP, which was not to be confused with the 1970 Convention.

V. International cooperation Articles 107 to 109 159. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 110 160. Turkey wished to flag that it was not party to the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 referred to in this provision. Greece reminded Turkey that this provision reproduced the text of Article 11 of the 1970 Convention.

VI. Periodic reports on the implementation of the 1970 Convention

Articles 111-112 161. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Articles 113-114 162. The Netherlands (observer) wished to reiterate that the 1970 Convention stands on its own and that bilateral or multilateral agreements are optional. Article 115 163. Greece considered that it is now one of the functions of the Subsidiary Committee to review national reports presented by the States Parties and that this should be pointed out directly in the text of the provision or in a footnote. Articles 116 to 119 164. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Articles 120-121 165. Greece repeated its remark on the function of the Subsidiary Committee to review national reports and suggested explaining the procedure in these provisions: the national reports should first be presented to the Subsidiary Committee and then to the Committee of Conventions and Recommendations of UNESCO’s Executive Board (CCR). The Assistant Director-General for Culture replied that this point would be clarified once the Operational Guidelines were finalized. Normally there should be no reason why the States would have to send their reports to the CCR anymore.

VII. Education, awareness-raising, capacity-building and promotion of the 1970 Convention

22

166. The Netherlands (observer) suggested adding to the Operational Guidelines a list of useful links and websites to facilitate communication. Canada (observer) specified that this kind of information should be put in the annexes, as it would most likely need to be updated in the future. Articles 122 to 125 167. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 126 168. Ecuador wished to add “consular staff” to this provision. Greece, supported by Romania (observer), considered this article as too unclear and suggested deleting it altogether. Articles 127 to 131 169. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions. Article 132 170. France (observer) proposed to mention the Psyche Project, an INTERPOL initiative to modernize its Stolen Works of Art database, in close cooperation with the Italian Carabinieri Specialized Unit for the Protection of Cultural Heritage. The Netherlands (observer) seconded this suggestion. Articles 133-134 171. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions.

VIII. The 1970 Convention emblem Articles 135 to 140 172. The States Parties made no comments on these provisions.

[Wednesday 3 July 2013, Evening Session]

ADOPTION OF COMPLEMENTARY DECISIONS Document C70/13/1.SC/Decisions 173. By those complementary decisions, the Subsidiary Committee:

- encouraged UNESCO Member States to become parties to the 1970 Convention (DECISION 1.SC 5) ;

- expressed its gratitude to those States that contributed financially to the organization of this Session (DECISION 1.SC 6);

23

- invited all States Parties to contribute to the functioning of the Secretariat (DECISION 1.SC 7);

- decided to consider, at its second session, the establishment of a fund to support the implementation of the 1970 Convention and invites the Director-General to allocate an amount to cover the participation costs for the representation of developing countries (DECISION 1.SC 8);

- decided to hold its second session from 30 June to 2 July 2014 (DECISION 1.SC 9).

CLOSURE OF THE MEETING 174. After having thanked the distinguished delegates for their patience and fruitful cooperation as well as the Secretariat for its hard work and continuous dedication, the Chairperson closed the first session of the Subsidiary Committee of the Meeting of States Parties to the 1970 Convention.