A/HRC/25/CRP.1 17. In accordance with paragraph 17 of Human Rights Council Resolution 23/256 and in line with best practices on the integration of gender in the exercise of mandates, the Commission has devoted specific attention to gendered issues and impacts of violations during the course of its investigations, paying particular attention to violence against women and children. Taking into account Human Rights Council Resolution 23/25, the Commission therefore paid specific attention to violence against women and girls and included the gender dimension of other violations in its report. Violence against women, in particular sexual violence, proved to be difficult to document owing to the stigma and shame that still attaches to the victims. The Commission takes the view that its inquiry may have only partially captured the extent of relevant violations. 18. Compared to the mandates given to other commissions of inquiry,7 paragraph 5 of Resolution 22/13 does not limit the temporal scope for the Commission’s inquiry. The Commission has focused on documenting violations that are reflective of the human rights situation as it persists at present. Within the limits of time, resources and available information at its disposal, the Commission has also inquired into patterns of human rights violations that may have commenced in the more distant past, but are continuing and/or have serious repercussions to this day. Historical events that predate the establishment of the DPRK are described where they are crucial to understanding the human rights violations in the DPRK and their underlying political, cultural and economic causes. 19. As to its geographic scope, the Commission has interpreted its mandate to include alleged violations perpetrated by the DPRK against its nationals both within and outside the DPRK as well as those violations that involve extraterritorial action originating from the DPRK, such as the abductions of non-DPRK nationals. 20. The Commission is of the view that violations committed outside the DPRK that causally enable or facilitate subsequent human rights violations in the DPRK, or are the immediate consequence of human rights violations that take place in the DPRK, are also within its mandate. In this respect, the Commission also made findings regarding the extent to which other states carry relevant responsibility.8 C. Non-cooperation by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 21. Resolution 22/13 urges the Government of the DPRK to cooperate fully with the Commission’s investigation, to permit the Commission’s members unrestricted access to visit the country and to provide them with all information necessary to enable them to fulfil their mandate. Immediately after its adoption, the DPRK publicly stated that it would “totally reject and disregard” the resolution, which it considered to be a “product of 6 7 8 8 Resolution on accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women: preventing and responding to rape and other forms of sexual violence (A/HRC/RES/23/25). For instance, Human Rights Council Resolution S-17/1 mandated the Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law since March 2011. The Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Libya investigated whether NATO committed violations during its bombing campaign (see A/HRC/19/68, paras. 83 ff). The Darfur COI reported that Chad and Libya were providing weapons to the rebellion. The COI on Syria documented the complicity of Hezbollah fighters in violations (see A/HRC/23/58, paras. 40 and 6). The COI on Israeli Settlements (A/HRC/22/63, paras. 96 ff) referred to the responsibility of foreign businesses, while the COI on Cote d’Ivoire detailed violations by Liberian mercenaries (A/HRC/A/HRC/17/48, paras. 64, 82 & 102).