A/HRC/31/70 with regard to the Korean War.17 The combined sovereign powers of all individual Member States to try perpetrators of crimes against humanity on the basis of the principle of universal jurisdiction could also be the basis to establish such a tribunal (see A/HRC/25/CRP.1, para. 1201). F. Way forward 38. Given the gravity of the violations committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the international community is obliged to take steps to ensure accountability. As summarized above, there are various practical and legal issues to be further developed. In this regard, there are two main bodies central to moving the accountability agenda forward: the group of experts on accountability, and OHCHR in Seoul. 1. Group of experts on accountability 39. First, a group of independent experts should be formed. The group should have three main responsibilities: (a) To establish the present state of international law and prevailing State practices on accountability; (b) To determine an appropriate approach to ensure State accountability of crimes against humanity committed by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; (c) To recommend creative and practical mechanisms of accountability that are most effective in securing truth and justice for the victims of crimes against humanity in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 40. In recent years, there have been significant developments in international law with regard to accountability, such as the establishment of the International Criminal Court and other tribunals. Nonetheless, the Special Rapporteur notes with deep concern the prevalence of recourse to amnesties, sometimes in contravention of obligations under international human rights law. Against this background, the group should clearly lay down the international legal ground for accountability. 41. The fundamental steps leading to prosecution are to define crimes, to identify actors and to present evidence of criminal wrongdoing. The commission of inquiry laid the groundwork for these three steps. The urgent challenge now is to determine which methods can be most effectively utilized to hold perpetrators accountable, while allowing victims to know the truth of what happened in the past. 42. Since the commission of inquiry concluded its work, there has been no comprehensive analysis of which models could be most appropriate. Such an analysis should include a review of the types of courts available, advantages and disadvantages in the context of the Korean peninsula, and the possible scope of prosecution. The Special Rapporteur again stresses the importance of the International Criminal Court, while acknowledging that the Court is able to handle only the uppermost leadership. He notes that there is sometimes a temptation to deal with those who do not face prosecution in the International Criminal Court through collective agreements or processes. This approach of dealing with those who have not been brought before the Court carries the risk of entrenching impunity, undermining national legal processes and fostering resentment and 17 10 See Christian Tomuschat, “United for Peace: General Assembly resolution 377 (V), 3 November 1950”, United Nations, 2014.