4.
Also notes progress in deterring illegal demolitions and in strengthening institutional frameworks for the management of the property and requests the State Party to ensure the regulatory procedures for demolitions are strictly enforced;
5.
Regrets that the State Party did not submit a completed Disaster Preparedness Plan, as requested in Decision 32 COM 7B.127 and notes with concern that it has not been finalised in light of the vulnerability of the place;
6.
Takes note of the projects planned for the Historic Centre and also requests the State Party, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, to submit to the World Heritage Committee their specific details for consideration by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS;
7.
Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011, a detailed report on the state of conservation of the property and on the progress made in the implementation of the above recommendations, for the examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.
143.
Decision:
ChavĂn Archaeological Site (Peru) (C 330)
33 COM 7B.143
The World Heritage Committee, 1.
Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/7B,
2.
Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.129, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),
3.
Notes with satisfaction progress made in measures to guarantee the conservation of the property and in developing the management plan and urges the State Party to finalise it to begin its implementation;
4.
Requests the State Party to provide three printed and electronic copies of the finalised management plan for review by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies as soon as possible;
5.
Encourages the State Party to precisely define a risk preparedness plan in light of the vulnerability of the site;
6.
Also requests the Sate Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, in accordance to Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, architectural plans and specifications for public use facilities to be implemented at the property, as well as projects for river defences and the proposed new bridge, for review by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS;
Report of decisions of the 33rd session of the World Heritage Committee (Seville, 2009)
WHC-09/33.COM/20, p. 173