A/HRC/7/20 page 14 F. Consequences of violence and violations: the impunity factor? 43. In retrospect, through the range of reports offered by the Special Rapporteur as well as other sources of information, it is clear that there have been and are serious human rights violations in the country. It is incumbent upon the national authorities and the international community to address the impunity factor which has enabled such violations to exist and/or persist for a long time. 44. The softer entry point to deal with the misdeeds of local officials is to make them more accountable at the national level. This may be taking place in some situations where law enforcers and others are prosecuted for some crimes committed against the population. However, care should be exercised to assess such actions against international standards and the rule of law. Given the non-independent nature of the judiciary in the country, it is difficult to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done. 45. The harder entry point is to advocate more accountability in the international setting, whether in terms of State responsibility and/or individual criminal responsibility. The fact that this mandate of the Special Rapporteur was established in 2004 may be seen to be part of this trend which militates against impunity and emphasizes the accountability of those who should be responsible for human rights violations. This is reiterated and advanced by resolutions from the United Nations, particularly those of the General Assembly on the country in question, which exert graduated pressure for accountability. Yet, the question remains whether the issue of violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will be taken up at some stage at the pinnacle of the system, within the totality of the United Nations framework. 46. As noted in the previous report of the Special Rapporteur, civil society has begun to advocate the responsibility of the authorities to protect nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from human rights violations, as the “responsibility to protect” people, with possible access to the Security Council and a non-binding resolution.21 There may also be avenues for mobilizing action for individual criminal responsibility, inspired by the presence of the International Criminal Court, where the local system is unable or unwilling to act to make individuals accountable for serious crimes. 47. The above issues are part of the multilateral framework for accountability. Another entry point is to examine whether other arrangements - regional, bilateral or mixed - may be possible to advocate a sense of responsibility to counter the impunity factor. On a more facilitative side, it is regrettable that the country has not sought assistance from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to improve its justice system and human rights implementation. Given that the six-party talks are currently also dealing with some aspects of 21 See further: “Failure to Protect: a call for the UN Security Council to act in North Korea”, U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (Washington, 2006); and North Korea: A Case to Answer - A Call to Act, Christian Solidarity Worldwide (London, 2007).