A/HRC/13/56 636. Amnesty International urged the State to implement the recommendations on the right to food by facilitating the effective distribution of international humanitarian aid to people in need and cooperating constructively with humanitarian agencies. It had not had access to the State since 1995, and requested the Government to extend an invitation, together with other human rights and humanitarian organizations, to visit the country. It urged the State to implement the recommendations on cooperation with the special procedures and to reconsider the recommendations it had rejected, with a view to supporting them in due course. 637. The Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint statement with the World Peace Council, stated that the European Union, the United States, Japan and their allies supported a resolution that had yet once again put the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the dock for supposed human rights violations, and imposed a special rapporteur to the detriment of the State’s sovereignty. The European Union, Japan and the United States were maintaining hostility and harassment against the State. The North Korean Human Rights Act, promulgated by the United States Senate in 2004, was a clear intention of threatening the State’s sovereignty. 638. The Organization for Defending Victims of Violence asked the State to intensify efforts to promote a human rights culture, ensure that goals of economic development by 2012 contributed to a decisive turn in human rights, increase efforts in human rights for specific groups, increase cooperation with international humanitarian and human rights bodies and mechanisms, and try to reach a balance between the enjoyment of civil and political rights with that of economic, social and cultural rights. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under review 639. The delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stated that recommendations made in good faith would be considered as a sign of encouragement and support. Conversely, some comments were made based on groundless information, which seriously distorted reality. Should these comments be due to lack of knowledge, the State were ready to provide assistance for their proper understanding; but if they were based on dishonest intent, which had nothing to do with human rights, the State would categorically reject them. 640. In its introductory statement, the State had provided responses to the recommendations in a clustered manner for easier coverage. It had taken note of those recommendations for which, in some countries’ views, it did not present a clear position despite its efforts. The delegation reaffirmed the State’s compliance with international instruments and the promotion of sincere dialogue and cooperation through international mechanisms such as the universal periodic review. 641. Statements were made before the adoption of the outcome of the review. 642. With reference to the recommendations, Norway failed to understand which recommendations had been accepted and which rejected, thus remaining unclear as to the outcome of the interactive dialogue. Norway sought the advice of the President and proposed a brief suspension of proceedings. 643. Although it was not opposed to a suspension of proceedings, Cuba believed that the head of delegation had clearly stated the position of his country on the recommendations. 644. The delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stated that, as a sovereign country, it had the right to decide which recommendations could be accepted, further studied or rejected. It reiterated that it had taken note of those recommendations that, in some countries’ opinion, were not properly reflected. 175