A/HRC/27/10 Introduction 1. The Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, established in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007, held its nineteenth session from 28 April to 9 May 2014. The review of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was held at the 8th meeting on 1 May 2014. The delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was headed by So Se Pyong, Ambassador, Permanent Representative, Geneva. At its 14th meeting, held on 6 May 2014, the Working Group adopted the report on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 2. On 15 January 2014, the Human Rights Council selected the following group of rapporteurs (troika) to facilitate the review of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: Côte d’Ivoire, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 3. In accordance with paragraph 15 of the annex to resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to resolution 16/21, the following documents were issued for the review of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: (a) A national report submitted/written presentation made in accordance with paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/19/PRK/1 and the annex thereto); (b) A compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/19/PRK/2); (c) A summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/19/PRK/3). 4. A list of questions prepared in advance by Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Liechtenstein, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America was transmitted to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea through the troika. Those questions are available on the extranet of the universal periodic review (UPR). I. Summary of the proceedings of the review process A. Presentation by the State under review 5. The delegation stated that during the reporting period broad consultations had been held with a large number of institutions and organizations with a view to giving serious consideration to the recommendations received during the country’s first-cycle review; as a result, a decision was taken to accept many of those recommendations and take note of some others. Most of the accepted recommendations had been implemented or were under implementation. 6. The Government attached importance to the UPR mechanism and expected that the review would be a good occasion to provide an objective and impartial assessment of the human rights situation in the country. 7. A series of human rights-related laws, including in the areas of education, health care, the protection of the rights of the child, women and persons with disabilities, and disaster prevention were adopted or amended during the reporting period. Due regard was given to the international human rights instruments to which the country was a party. 3