A/HRC/13/47 56. Another angle which deserves emphasis is family unity and family reunification. Particularly in cross-border situations, families are separated in the migration process. The clandestine relationships between nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and those of other countries have given rise to a number of other concerns, such as forced marriage and the status of the children of cross-border relationships, their access to birth registration, documentation and education. In the eventuality that some members manage to settle in other countries as a final safe haven, the question which lingers is to what extent members of their families can join them, whether or not they are clandestine, and whether or not they are irregular migrants. Humanitarian considerations would dictate that they need to be afforded protection and assistance on the basis of non-discrimination, irrespective of nationality, statelessness, or social or other origins. F. Impunity and responsibility 57. In the crucible of the multiple abuses identified, there arises the issue of responsibility. Why have those who should be responsible for the misdeeds enjoyed a degree of impunity for such a long time? Much depends upon national and international will to ensure accountability and responsiveness, and the role of the United Nations is obviously relevant in this respect. 58. There is the systemic issue of human rights violations caused by the power base in the name of the State. Various sources have suggested a number of ways of making the powers that be accountable internationally, given that the national authorities are unable or unwilling to press for such accountability.27 They include the possibility of the Security Council taking up the issue directly and of establishing a Commission of Inquiry on crimes against humanity. 59. An intriguing question is to what extent the International Criminal Court can be accessed for this purpose, on the basis of individual criminal responsibility and interrelated with the fact that the country in question is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.28 There may be some openings. Article 13 of the Statute enables the Court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to four key crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crime of aggression) in three situations: where a State party refers a case to the Court’s Prosecutor; where a case is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council; or where the Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such crime in accordance with article 15 of the Statute. Article 15 provides that the Prosecutor can act on his/her own initiative as follows: “1. The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. “… “3. If the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he or she shall submit to the Pre-trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation, together with any supporting material collected. Victims may make representations to the Pre-trial Chamber, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. 27 28 14 See, for example, DLA Piper, Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights, Failure to Protect: The Ongoing Challenge of North Korea (Washington D.C., 2008). See further: William Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004). GE.10-10793