A/HRC/26/43 numerous cases of international abduction and enforced disappearances,28 as documented by the commission of inquiry in its report, is totally unacceptable. If accepted at face value, this conduct, despite the consistent and credible evidence gathered also by other mechanisms of the Human Rights Council itself, could seriously undermine the whole universal periodic review process with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, running counter to the principles that the review be a cooperative mechanism, based on objective and reliable information and on dialogue, thus undermining its objective of improving the situation of human rights on the ground. This should also be food for thought for those Member States that did not support the commission of inquiry or Human Rights Council resolution 25/25 by arguing that the universal periodic review mechanism rather than a country-specific initiative would be preferable to address the situation. V. The way forward: the responses required of all parties concerned 39. In its resolution 25/25, the Human Rights Council called upon all parties concerned, including United Nations bodies, to consider implementation of the recommendations made by the commission of inquiry in its report in order to address the dire human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Special Rapporteur interprets “all parties concerned” as all-encompassing; this includes Member States, the United Nations system and its relevant bodies, neighbouring States and other States concerned, relevant international, regional and national bodies, civil society, individuals, the international community as a whole, and possibly other stakeholders. 40. Unlike in the previous two years, when the Human Rights Council adopted its annual resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (resolution 19/13 in 2012 and resolution 22/13 in 2013) without a vote, resolution 25/25 was adopted by a vote, requested by Cuba; the result was 30 votes in favour (Argentina, Austria, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sierra Leone, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America), 6 against (China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam), with 11 abstentions (Algeria, Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Namibia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa). The position of each of the 47 States Members of the Council has been recorded and is a matter of public and historical record. The Special Rapporteur observes that both during the interactive dialogue with the commission of inquiry and when the resolution was adopted on 28 March 2014, none, with the exception of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, denied that the dire human rights situation had to be addressed. Of the countries that did not join the majority of 30 members voting in favour of the resolution, most – if not all – cited procedural reasons or differences in approach. They reiterated their reservations about countryspecific mandates, and expressed preference for other mechanisms, in particular the universal periodic review, and urged engagement, dialogue and cooperation. The Special Rapporteur stresses that different mechanisms exist for good reasons, and that they are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, ultimately they serve and share the common goal to better promote and protect human rights for all. 28 Ibid., paras. 122 and 119. 13