I agree, but do you contest the accuracy of the statements in that document? More importantly, does North Korea contest it? Has North Korea made any official statement to refute the accusations? I think there's too much detail and too many references to the public record for that report to have been fabricated.
The system there is broken, to the point that Kim Jung Un had to execute his uncle, whose trade role with China gave him enough access to resources to appear to be (or to actually be) a threat.
How could we create a framework that would facilitate a peaceful change? From a purely pragmatic perspective, the west has no interest in invasion of North Korea - their resources don't justify the effort, and an invasion of North Korea would result in US / Western forces on the doorstep of China, which would be bad for international relationships that do we care about. It's easier for everyone to ignore what is happening in North Korea, because to tackle the problem would release millions of refugees to impoverish China and South Korea.
What we actually need is an agreement between China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the USA as to how to handle a potential collapse of North Korea in a way that minimises the loss of life, e.g. each country agrees to provide food for a period of five years to 6 million of the population, and the space to allow some kind of non-psychotic government to emerge amongst the North Koreans.
It might be better if a democratic nation emerged in North Korea, but even a caretaker communist regime that actually focussed on improving the lot of the people would be a vast improvement, versus the paranoid system that's reported by the UN. North Korea is still an echo of Russia under Stalin, or China under Mao.