The genocide convention is really outside of my mandate, so I would be skating on thin ice to comment on that.
But, generally speaking, when assessments are made in a proceeding to determine whether or not genocide is, in fact, being perpetrated, there is always the question of intent. I think in certain cases perhaps—and this is my personal opinion—if there is clearly targeting of cultural property, that could be used as an element to try to establish that there is intent.
Again, I do not have responsibility for legal conventions in general. I'm a UNESCO ambassador. That is really something that's beyond the scope of my expertise, but the need to protect cultural heritage is clearly based in international humanitarian law, because destroying a society's cultural heritage is something that has been seen as destroying the will of and committing harm to that society.
I don't know if that answers your question.