The Chinese Cultural Relics Protection Law stipulates: Penalties for destroying immovable cultural relics

More than half of the more than 40,000 immovable artifacts that have disappeared in the country in the past 30 years have been destroyed in various construction activities. Recently, the State Administration of Cultural Heritage announced the report of the National Enforcement Committee's Law Enforcement Inspection Team on the inspection of the implementation of the "People's Republic of China Cultural Relics Protection Law." It pointed out that some localities need to further improve their understanding of the protection of cultural relics, and the security of cultural relics remains grim.

As we all know, just as property can be divided into movable property and immovable property, cultural relics can also be divided into movable cultural relics and immovable cultural relics. Those immovable artifacts such as houses, tombs, and movable artifacts (coins, ceramics, etc.) record the history of the development of human civilization and carry the memory of human civilization as we know when we are paralyzed by the quaint Paris. This is a historic city.

Can not use punishment to punish those who deliberately destroy immovable cultural relics? Not too. The Criminal Law stipulates that the crime of intentionally damaging cultural relics refers to the intentional destruction of cultural relics in violation of the protection laws and regulations of cultural relics, knowingly being the precious cultural relics protected by the State, or being recognized as cultural relics of national key cultural relics protection units and provincial cultural relics protection units. Even if it is not the unmovable cultural relics of the national key cultural relics protection units and provincial cultural relics protection units, it is not impossible to cure them. Because the criminal law also provides for the crime of intentionally destroying public and private property, it means deliberately destroying or damaging public and private property, a large amount or other serious acts. Therefore, to destroy the general immovable cultural relics, if the amount reaches a certain standard, it should also be punished with this crime. If a public official instigates the destruction of immovable cultural relics by others and reaches a certain amount, he is also suspected of abusing his power; if a public officer with supervisory responsibilities fails to promptly stop the destruction of immovable cultural relics by others, he is suspected of dereliction of duty.

The law clearly stipulates that the destruction of immovable cultural relics is still paralysed. In the report of the National **, the reason was solved: "Some local governments and corporate legal persons deliberately evaded archaeological survey and exploration to carry out the project construction, resulting in the destruction of cultural relics. In some areas, excessive use of cultural relics in the development of the tourism industry has caused damage to cultural relics even for the construction of tourist attractions.” That is to say, behind the destruction of immovable cultural relics, the shadow of local government-supported developers or the local governments themselves are shining. All this is linked to the land requisition and demolition of the local government and the achievements of the officials. The difficulties and mysteries of the criminal responsibility cannot be investigated here.

Of course, it is difficult to investigate criminal responsibility for the destruction of immovable cultural relics, and it is also related to our background on the ineffective protection of real estate. In the tide of urban construction, the government and the developers can collect citizens’ houses and land at any time. We rarely see government officials and developers sentenced for forced demolition. Instead, we often hear that citizens have been jailed to protect their homes from forced demolitions. As the tide arrives, immovable cultural relics will inevitably sway with the wind.

Today, even the National Report says that “the security of cultural relics is still grim.” Should all localities mention the criminal liability of those who destroy the immovable cultural relics on the agenda?