A/HRC/31/70 reflection on how to approach unification and accountability in a way that promotes longterm stability and strengthens the rule of law. Experiences from other States that have undergone a process of transition show that reflection and discussion on possible accountability mechanisms and processes should start at an early stage, and include longterm strategies. 23. For the above reasons, crimes against humanity require prosecution at the national or international levels. As the term implies, crimes against humanity are a concern for all of humanity. Consequently, ensuring accountability for such crimes is an international as much as a Korean challenge and requires the international community to play a role. At the same time, mechanisms, such as truth commissions, reparations and memorialization may complement these processes and provide a durable and practical way of ensuring that as much truth as possible is revealed. 24. A failure to address serious and systemic violations this has the potential to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the system, and may therefore become a destabilizing factor. In addition, such a failure deprives victims of the justice and guarantees of non-repetition to which they are entitled. Persistent human rights issues, such as systematic discrimination and unequal distribution of wealth and services, must also be addressed. Furthermore, the justice and security sectors would require reform to meet international human rights standards, including through vetting. Without such reforms, prosecution would have little effect in the long term. The question should never be whether to pursue accountability, but rather when and how. 1 Efforts to ensure accountability must take into consideration the risk of a rapid deterioration in the humanitarian situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In this respect, greater support for humanitarian organizations and other entities that operate in the country is required to mitigate that risk and to enhance their capacity to foresee emergencies. 2. Responsibility to prosecute 25. With regard to accountability, the Special Rapporteur stresses that the finding by the commission of inquiry that crimes against humanity have been and are being committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea demands that the international community prosecute those responsible for such crimes, in particular those most responsible for their authorization, ordering and perpetration. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur highlights the preamble of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which states that “it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes”. Furthermore, in the Declaration of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the rule of law at the national and international levels, the Heads of State and Government and heads of delegation attending the meeting on 24 September 2012 committed to ensuring that impunity is not tolerated for crimes against humanity and gross violations of human rights law, and that such violations are properly investigated and appropriately sanctioned, including by bringing the perpetrators of any crimes to justice, through national mechanisms or, where appropriate, regional or international mechanisms, in accordance with international law.2 26. By imposing an obligation to extradite or prosecute, various conventions obligate States to cooperate in combating impunity. 3 An obligation to extradite or prosecute for, 1 2 3 6 Guidance note of the Secretary-General on the United Nations approach to transitional justice, 2010, p. 6. General Assembly resolution 67/1. International Law Commission, “The obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)”, para. 1.