A/HRC/25/CRP.1 52. Bearing this context in mind, the Commission sought to exercise judgement, caution and sensitivity in all interactions with victims and witnesses. Constant assessments were made about the need to establish contact with persons who may be placed at risk as a result of that contact. Contacts were not attempted if the Commission determined that it would not be able to ensure the safety of a cooperating person, if the risk of harm was assessed to be too high or if the Commission did not have sufficient information to make an informed determination on the level of risk. In particular, the Commission did not pursue offers to have direct contact through mobile telephones with witnesses still residing in the DPRK. 53. In relation to the public hearings, protection concerns were carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all relevant circumstances. In principle, the Commission only heard publicly from victims and witnesses who had no close family left in the DPRK or were judged not to be at risk in the People’s Republic of China. Informed consent of the witness to testify was a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement to allow for the testimony to be heard. In some cases, the Commission refused the offer of courageous witnesses who offered to testify in public, since reprisals against family were judged a real possibility. In other cases, victims and witnesses whose names and experiences were already subject to extensive media coverage were allowed to testify, unless there were reasonable grounds to believe that additional public testimony might result in further reprisals. The Commission also took care to ensure that witnesses’ testimony and questioning would not refer to the personal details of persons who had not expressed their consent to be identified in public and who could face protection concerns. 54. The identity of all witnesses was established by the Commission prior to the hearings. Most witnesses were also prepared to reveal their identity during the public hearings. For protection reasons, however, some witnesses were permitted only to identify themselves with a pseudonym (Ms X, Mr Timothy etc.) and to take measures to conceal their faces or adopt other identifiers. A small number of witnesses wore hats, sunglasses or other clothing that covered parts of their faces, measures to prevent the discovery of their identity. 55. Even these extensive protection measures may not prevent reprisals. The Commission requests that any information indicating that persons who cooperated with the Commission or their family members faced reprisals be brought to the immediate attention of the Secretary-General, through the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Commission recalls that primary responsibility for protecting victims, witnesses and other persons cooperating with the Commission rests with their states of residence and nationality and urges Member States to provide additional protection measures where necessary. 56. The lack of physical access to witnesses and sites in the DPRK, coupled with the stated protection concerns, created a number of particular challenges for an effective investigation. 57. The pool of potential first-hand witnesses is limited to no more than 30,000 citizens who have left the DPRK, the vast majority of whom reside today in the Republic of Korea. Most of these witnesses are from provinces bordering China, which means that the situation in those provinces is relatively better documented than the situation in other provinces of the DPRK. In most cases, a person who fled the DPRK requires considerable time to reach a place of safety and to develop the courage necessary to speak about his or her experience. Given that the Commission applied a rigorous standard of proof based on first-hand testimony, it was therefore not able to confirm many of the most recent instances of human rights violations alleged by non-governmental organizations and media reports. 58. The most significant challenge faced by the Commission resulted from a fear of reprisals. The majority of potential witnesses were afraid to speak out even on a confidential basis because they feared for the safety of their families and assumed that their 14