A/HRC/13/56 pursuit of genuine cooperation with them, on the basis of the principle of non-politicization, non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity. 615. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea needed technical cooperation in various fields of human rights, and sought its realization to complement sector-specific legislation, draft reports on the implementation of the international human rights instruments to which the country was a party, and to prepare human rights education curricula. Regrettably, in the case of the country, technical cooperation in human rights was being imposed as a means of pressure. 616. The State had acceded to several international human rights instruments and honoured its obligations, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. 617. The State was implementing core elements of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of which the State was not a party, by incorporating them into sector laws. The State would further intensify studies on the possibility of accession to instruments to which it was not a party. 618. With regard to the reunification of separated families and relatives, the root of the question had its origins in the continued division of Korea imposed by outside forces and foreign interference for the last 65 years. Since the first day of division, the Government had spared no effort to translate reunifications into reality. In the new century alone, dozens of investigations on the fates of separated family members had been undertaken. 619. The year 2010 marked the tenth anniversary of the North-South Joint Declaration of 15 June 2008. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would do its best to pave the way for improved inter-Korean relations and to achieve national reconciliation and unity. 620. The people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had themselves embodied the philosophy of Juche, thereby making themselves the masters of their own destiny. The State would further develop its human rights protection system in keeping with the country’s reality and people’s aspirations, while vigorously pushing ahead with the building of an economically powerful country. 2. Views expressed by Member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome 621. Japan acknowledged the participation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the universal periodic review, but noted that it was not clear which recommendations had been accepted, and requested the State to express clearly its position on the recommendations. Japan referred to the country’s statement made in the Working Group asserting that the issue of the abduction of Japanese nationals had been completely settled. Such a statement contradicted the facts. Japan reiterated its call to the State to change its position on the abduction issue and to establish a committee to commence investigations in accordance with the agreement reached between the two countries in 2008. Japan urged the State to take concrete steps to improve the situation of human rights in the country. 622. Algeria recalled that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had participated in the interactive dialogue on issues such as the harmonization of domestic legislation with international instruments, women, agriculture production and education. It welcomed the State’s readiness to benefit from technical cooperation and noted that the country was facing natural disasters, a food crisis and the international financial crisis, which complicated its ability to respond to the needs of its citizens. The Council should take into account the situation and think of ways to be more helpful instead of showing an attitude of confrontation. 172