A/HRC/16/2 Federated States of Micronesia 657. The review of the Federated States of Micronesia was held on 9 November 2010 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: (a) The national report submitted by the Federated States of Micronesia in accordance with the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/9/FSM/1); (b) The compilation prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/9/FSM/2); (c) The summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/9/FSM/3). 658. At its 35th meeting, on 18 March 2011, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review of the Federated States of Micronesia (see section C below). 659. The outcome of the review of the Federated States of Micronesia comprises the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/16/16), the views of the Federated States of Micronesia concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, and its voluntary commitments and replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/16/16/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions, on its voluntary commitments and on the outcome 660. The Federated States of Micronesia stated that the universal periodic review had been a welcome exercise and that the Government was pleased to have played its part throughout the review. 661. The delegation referred to the natural disaster that had greatly affected Japan the week before and stated that, for a country like Micronesia, a small island developing State in the Pacific, the disaster in Japan was yet another grim reminder of its own vulnerability to natural disasters and the impact of climate change. The challenges that Micronesia faced in addressing human rights were often exacerbated by the challenges posed by the negative impact of climate change, which threatened Micronesia’s right to be secure, to live and to exist. 662. The delegation emphasized that remoteness and isolation were realities of small island nations in the Pacific. For a country such as Micronesia, with many scattered islands, it added yet another set of impediments to its efforts to provide the necessary services to its citizens, who were scattered on these tiny atolls. The Government would, however, always endeavour to do what was right, necessary and appropriate in order to promote and safeguard the dignity and human rights of its people. 663. The Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia was the supreme law of the land. It guaranteed the right to life, liberty, equal protection and due process of law. Many of the challenges that Micronesia faced in addressing human rights issues were due not to the lack of regard for law and human dignity, but to limited capacity and resources. The Federated States of Micronesia overwhelmingly supported many of the recommendations made by countries, but was mindful of its limited capacity and resources to implement necessary laws or to carry out recommended activities. 664. Micronesia supported the recommendations made by countries to ratify and accede to the core human rights treaties. Since the universal periodic review held in November GE.11-17059 199