FIG. 3 (right): Large funerary post, aloalo. Antandroy, Madagascar. Early 20th century. Private collection, Brussels. Photo: Arthur Verdier. 142 clusion relating to the defi nition of “cultural goods” (see below), and that it did not become law until three months later, on June 30, 2009. In the matter adjudicated on March 30, 2015, and under discussion here, this detail entirely escaped the public prosecutor’s attention, since he fi led charges relating to allegedly illegal importations that occurred between January 1, 2006, and November 30, 2009. Without even examining the statutes of the UNESCO Convention and their applicability, one is forced to conclude, as the judge presiding over the 45th Chambre Correctionnelle Brussels court did, that no infraction could have taken place in 2006, 2007, 2008, or before June 30, 2009. Only the charges relating to the two imports that occurred in October and November of 2009 had potential merit under the UNESCO Convention as it exists in Belgium. No Protection for Unclassifi ed or Unlisted Cultural Goods A simple reading of the convention reveals that it concerns “measures to prohibit and prevent the import, export, and transfer of illegal cultural goods,” which at fi rst glance might appear to apply to all cultural goods. But Article 1 enunciates two very important stipulations: The fi rst is that an item must have been designated on a member state’s list as having importance in the fi eld of archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art, or science, and the second is that it belong to one of the categories the convention applies to (Article 1 a–k). These two conditions are both stringent and make good sense. It would be absurd to uniformly prohibit the exportation of all objects that fall into the categories the convention applies to. These include “objects of artistic interest”; “engravings, etchings, and original lithographs”; “antiques more than 100 years old”; “ar- Art + law
•TribalPaginaIntera.indd
To see the actual publication please follow the link above