A/HRC/31/7 Introduction 1. The Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, established in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, held its twenty-third session from 2 to 13 November 2015. The review of Nauru was held at the 4th meeting, on 3 November 2015. The delegation of Nauru was headed by the Minister of Justice, David Adeang. At its 10th meeting, held on 6 November 2015, the Working Group adopted the report on Nauru. 2. On 13 January 2015, the Human Rights Council selected the following group of rapporteurs (troika) to facilitate the review of Nauru: Argentina, Kazakhstan and Kenya. 3. In accordance with paragraph 15 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21, the following documents were issued for the review of Nauru: (a) A national report submitted/written presentation made in accordance with paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/23/NRU/1); (b) A compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/23/NRU/2); (c) A summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/23/NRU/3). 4. A list of questions prepared in advance by Belgium, Germany, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was transmitted to Nauru through the troika. These questions are available on the extranet of the Working Group. I. Summary of the proceedings of the review process A. Presentation by the State under review 5. The head of the delegation of Nauru, David Adeang, Minister of Justice, stated that every nation benefited from having a mirror held before it. Every nation had challenges and could reach greater heights by participating seriously in the universal periodic review. This process provided the vital opportunity to self-assess, to listen to others and to more effectively address the concerns of individuals in our own country. 6. The Government of Nauru placed high importance on the review process, given its success in allowing Member States to be reviewed by their peers and, more significantly, tell their human rights stories to the international community. In addition, Nauru viewed the review as an opportunity to engage in an open and frank dialogue with the international community about the state of human rights in the country. In that regard, the Government of Nauru hoped that its responses to questions during the interactive dialogue and its ongoing follow-up action would prove that it takes its human rights obligations very seriously. 7. The national report of Nauru and overall preparations for the review were the product of an open and consultative process, involving stakeholders from both inside and outside the Government. In addition, the content of the universal periodic review of Nauru is a direct response to how it has implemented accepted recommendations from the first cycle of reporting. Furthermore, the creation of a dedicated human rights desk within the 3