Eleni Polymenopoulou | November 11, 2025
The Arch of Triumph in Palmyra, Syria, taken in 1996. (Before its destruction by ISIS in 2015). CC BY-SA 4.0
A special category of human rights defenders (HRDs) has emerged over the recent years: cultural rights defenders (CRDs). This has followed the acute interest of the international community in cultural matters, and the series of high level meetings organised at the UN Headquarters with the participation of many States (in particular Italy and Jordan), as well as UNESCO, INTERPOL, UNODOC, and other UN agencies. These efforts came shortly after ISIS audaciously destroyed the Temple of Baalshamin in the ancient city of Palmyra in 2015, and subsequent Financial Action Task Force reports about the smuggling of cultural artifacts and other antiquities being an essential aspect of ISIS terrorist financing. Consequently, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2199 of 2015, in which it deplored the destruction of heritage, and decided that all member states should take measures to prevent the illicit removal and trafficking of such objects. Few months later, the UN General Assembly also passed Resolution 69/281, recognising the need to protect Iraqi heritage, while in 2016, the Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 33/20 on “Cultural rights and the protection of cultural heritage”, which highlighted the “right of everyone to take part in cultural life, including the ability to access and enjoy cultural heritage.”
In line with these resolutions, the former UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights, Karima Bennoune, presented her first report to the UN General Assembly, which focused on the intentional destruction of heritage. The report emphasized that a human rights perspective on the protection of cultural heritage must protect those on the frontlines in the struggle to protect it. Subsequently, the Rapporteur’s second thematic report in 2020 was entirely dedicated to CRDs, who Bennoune calls “critical players in the defence of cultural rights.”
CRDs: Who Are They?
The UN Special Rapporteur’s report emphasizes that cultural rights defenders work in different ways, and distinguishes between various types of work in nine categories. The definition is particularly broad, since CRDs may be not only experts, but also activists, artists, journalists, academics, or simply members of civil society – anyone who acts in defence of cultural rights individually and in association with others. There is mention of those who strive to protect the cultural richness of our world by safeguarding first and foremost, their distinct identities and ways of life, and seek to end impunity for the damage of these identities. This is also in line with the very broad understanding of the term “culture” , in line with the UN’s General comment 21 on participation in cultural life. According to the UN Special Rapporteur, some of those working in cultural institutions would be CRDs at risk. Such CRDs would include for example, those who have curated, preserved and protected the National Museum of Afghanistan through decades of war. CRDs may work individually – or form associations for the protection of cultural rights or heritage. They may work in NGOs, and even be active in conflict zones (as is the case with Heritage For Peace) while some of them may also work in international organisations, in collaboration also with ICOMOS, UNESCO, or the Blue Shield.
It is not necessarily apparent why the labour of a CRD, such as a gallery employee or a librarian, would give rise to life threatening situations. Furthermore, as emphasised by Bennoune, “many people may be cultural rights defenders, or function as such, without necessarily describing themselves in those terms.” The defining parameter however is not the CRDs profession per se. Rather, it is the circumstances CRDs work in, the particular place and timing in which they operate, the nature of their work, and their struggle every day with fear that they might be targeted or harassed precisely because of their work in the cultural field.
It would also make sense to delineate between these circumstances. Difference could be drawn for instance, between those CRDs who work in conflict zones or when disasters strike (such as those field workers who lost their lives while striving to save cultural treasures from the devastating earthquake in the Kathmandu valley in Nepal in 2015), and those who work in peacetime. The work of the latter is also extremely important, especially those members of cultural associations who strive to keep traditions alive by teaching younger generations, often within educational settings. This is precisely the spirit of UNESCO – in its work to preserve heritage for present and future generations. Archive officers and particularly those keeping records undoubtedly fall within this category. Yet unless such individuals are working under fear, they would arguably not “qualify” as CRDs.
It is irrelevant whether one strives to safeguard tangible or intangible cultural heritage. A sad example is the murder of Domingo Choc Che, a spiritual guide who was murdered in Guatemala in June 2020, allegedly for his role in preserving ancestral knowledge among Mayans. Furthermore, CRDs are not necessarily dissidents or members of civil society. An apt example is policemen, Interpol agents, and custom officers who can find themselves in perilous situations fighting trafficking in cultural or ancient artifacts, and generally art crime, especially in developing states. Furthermore, organized crime is often a step ahead of the authorities, both in terms of locating them and bribing officials. Likewise, history shows that international humanitarian law related to cultural heritage has largely failed to protect heritage. Members of military forces have been responsible themselves for looting cultural heritage – as in the case of the massive pillage of the Iraqi museum in 2003 by American soldiers. Conversely, if such officers receive appropriate training, as per the Hague 1954 Convention dissemination measures and military education they themselves can ultimately function as CRDs. The sole criterion to define CRDs is therefore a functional one.
Traditional olive harvest in Palestine, 2014. By بدارين | CC BY-SA 4.0
Accountability Mechanisms for Violations of the Rights of HRDs
The prudent question is whether accountability mechanisms are available for violations of CRDs rights and if so, whether these should be different to the mechanisms already in operation for Human Rights Defenders (HRDs). It is not always possible to distinguish between HRDs and CRDs. Furthermore, according to the UN Special Rapporteur’s report, CRDs are merely a constitution among HRDs, simply difficult to recognise or protect effectively. An example is human rights organisations such as Article19 that incidentally only report on creatives’ arrests, or other violations of cultural rights. Some HRDs incidentally also defend culture, or report about the destruction of heritage and other grave violations of cultural rights. Museum associations, for instance, reported the unprecedented destruction of Palestinian heritage since October 7 2023, and B’Tselem for example, had already reported that in 2018, thousands of olive trees in Palestinian villages of the West Bank were uprooted and burned by Israeli settlers. Such crimes have not only financial implications in agricultural sector, but are also distinctly cultural. Olive trees, olive oil, and citrus growth play a vital role in the safeguarding of Palestinian cultural identities. States should make sure there are appropriate investigation mechanisms, that are appropriate, fair and efficient. In any event, an accountability mechanism should engage both the negative and positive obligations of states, that is to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.
Mayan men carrying the remains of relatives who perished in the Guatemalan Genocide, Alta Verapaz, Guatemala. By Trocaire – CAFCA archive. CC BY 2.0.
In case of any infringements of CRDs work, state responsibility may be triggered under human rights law, primarily free speech provisions, or provisions related to freedom of association. The starting point is the UN 1998 Declaration of Human Rights Defenders. Article 2(1) of that Declaration refers to the general responsibility of States to protect, promote and implement all human rights in its territory, and 2(2) refers to the duties of States to take all necessary steps, in order to ensure that these rights are effectively guaranteed. Other human rights however may also be applicable, depending on the circumstances, in case of those HRDs,or CRDs,who are intimidated or harassed, threatened, detained unlawfully imprisoned, or even tortured and killed. These could include, for example, the right to physical integrity, their right to privacy, or the right to fair trial.. State responsibility therefore may be triggered under relevant human rights treaties ratified by that State, as well as customary international law. States that do not conduct appropriate, impartial, and effective investigations for crimes against CRDs, for example, should be held accountable, as in the case of the 41 indigenous defenders who were killed in 2024 for defending their lands, and also their traditions.
It is important to recognise the cultural dimension of this legal framework, as well as violation of cultural rights and the right to meaningfully participate in one’s culture in all the above cases. States that do not facilitate the promotion of cultural rights could be held accountable, for example, under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and possibly also Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in line with the need to preserve culture and in light of the freedom to choose one’s culture – majority or minority.
Graffiti in Warsaw, Poland, framing outrage over the 2012 Pussy Riot trial. Roman Eugeniusz, CC BY-SA 3.0.
Artistic and creative freedom is also relevant, since CRDs might also be creatives, being artists or writers themselves. By way of illustration, political art should never be viewed as offensive, or potentially offensive, as in the case of Pussy Riot and other performers who were sentenced to jail in Russia for being too critical of Putin – or those artists taking action to support a ceasefire in Gaza. It is imperative therefore that artistic expression is protected by the courts and the executive through appropriate formal mechanisms and access to justice. Accountability mechanisms therefore include, for instance, the UN treaty bodies which scrutinize States performance by means of State reporting, as well as Regional human rights bodies, in accordance with international and regional standards on creative freedom.
Conclusion
CRDs are human rights defenders, who fight for the full realisation of cultural rights. States, as the only viable duty bearers, are under an obligation to take measures to prevent the violations of cultural rights and the rights of CRDs. In so doing, they must set up accountability mechanisms in order to prevent state and non-state actors from violations in the first place. Further, they must endeavour to bring to justice persons that attack the work or person of cultural rights defenders,as highlighted also in the UN Special Rapporteur’s report in 2020. States have not only negative but also positive obligations to facilitate the work of the CRDs, without discriminating among them on political, religious, racial or other grounds. Only then can we effectively advance the right to freely participate in cultural life.
Eleni Polymenopoulou is a Greek Associate Professor at Hamad Bin Khalifa University (Qatar Foundation), College of Law. She is the author of Artistic Freedom in International law (Cambridge University Press, 2023) .