1. 减少贫困和粮食安全
102. 瑙鲁正在缓慢地从一场严重的经济危机中恢复。在 1990 年代末和 2000 年 代初，瑙鲁不但丧失了可观的财富，而且还背上了巨额债务。由于从 2004 年开 始实施了一些重要的经济和管理方面的改革措施，经济正在逐步复苏。然而，瑙 鲁的财政储备已经耗尽，目前仍然负有大量国债。瑙鲁的私营部门很小，失业率 高并且严重依赖外国援助。除了一般性的经济困难以外，瑙鲁还面临粮食安全问 题。瑙鲁几乎完全依赖进口食品。没有足够的土地进行大规模农业和粮食生产。
103. 瑙鲁政府一直依靠双边援助促进农业自给自足。政府为家庭菜园项目发放 补贴和提供技术援助。政府正在逐步建立一个国家苗圃，向各个社区提供水果和 蔬菜，以便减少国家对于进口农产品的依赖，并且提供更多的健康食品。2010 年 7 月，启动了面包果计划，向个人发放面包果树。这项计划的目标是要促进自 给自足，并且提供比较便宜和有营养的食物，以便取代大米作为主食。同时，还 资助农民养猪和养鸡。
104. 为了促进小企业发展和经济增长，政府在联合国开发计划署的资助下建立 了瑙鲁创业发展中心。该中心提供关于如何成功建立和管理小企业的培训，并且 帮助掌握技能。
105. 政府正在制定一项政策，以便推动本国和外国的投资。这项政策可能涉及 修订有关法律，以便消除对于外国投资者的阻碍和限制，并且提供适当的优惠。
瑙鲁还试图通过其在 PSIDS 中的领导地位，减少贫困和加强粮食安全(见上文第 93段)。
2. 土地
106. 土地使用权属于个人，而不属于集体。几乎所有瑙鲁的土地都为私人拥 有；大块土地往往为几百人共有，其中每人只拥有一小部分。不得将土地出售或 者转让给外国人；所有土地租约必须经过总统批准。一些土著瑙鲁人由于被剥夺 继承权而丧失土地，这种做法是违背习俗继承原则的。
107. 议会在 2009 年设立了一个土地问题专责委员会，以便调查一系列的问 题，其中包括：土地继承、土地分割、土地事务的处理、土地档案、土地纠纷的 处理、无地瑙鲁人获得土地、土地法律的现状、土地分类以及土地收入的获得。
该委员会的议事规则规定：委员会必须征求公众的意见并且向议会报告。由于第 十八届议会被解散，该专责委员会未能深入开展工作。在打破目前的政治僵局和 议会重新履行正常职能之后，很可能会重新设立专责委员会。
3. 文化
108. 由于外国当局的政策和影响，瑙鲁丧失了其多数传统文化。然而，瑙鲁人 民保留了自己的口头语言以及对于土地的依恋，同时对于其民族特点具有强烈的 自豪感。
109. 内政部提倡瑙鲁文化和保留传统知识和工艺。瑙鲁文化和历史以一种特别 的方式纳入了学校教学，但是还没有成为正规学校课程的一个具体部分。学前班 的教师以瑙鲁语教学，但是中小学的所有课程都用英语讲授。
110. 内政部和教育部正在共同制定一项关于瑙鲁语言和文化的政策，旨在将这 两项内容纳入中小学课程。在实施这项政策之前，瑙鲁的书面语言必须标准化，
将由一个语言委员会规定拼写和语法，并且编写一部官方的瑙鲁语辞典。
四. 结束语和关于技术援助的请求
111. 正如上文本报告 C 节所详述，在一些领域中，瑙鲁在保护某些人权方面的 工作还有待于大力改进。目前，最大的挑战是：消除暴力侵害妇女；帮助人民诉 诸司法；加强粮食安全；减少贫困；以及改善人类健康和环境卫生；必须为此作 出重大承诺。在 C 节中还举出了一些实例，说明近年来瑙鲁人权状况有了一些 明显的改进；一些政府承诺和行动进一步加强了人权保护。
112. 上文已经详细叙述了瑙鲁人民和政府所面临的许多挑战；特别是以下因素 带来的困难：国土窄小、地理位置偏僻、能力不足以及财政资源有限。由于瑙鲁 的捐助伙伴以及区域和国际组织慷慨地提供了技术援助和财政援助，这些挑战得 到了缓解，但是没有被消除。
113. 为了帮助瑙鲁进一步改善本国的人权状况，特别希望联合国机构以及会员
1 Nancy Viviani, Nauru – Phosphate and Political Progress, ANU Press (1970) 4.
2 Teuea Toatu, ‘Keeping the Nauru Economy Afloat’，(2004) 19 Pacific Economic Bulletin 123, 123-4.
3 The NSDS was prepared with assistance from some of Nauru’s development partners: the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, the Asian Development Bank, and the governments of Australia, Japan and Samoa.
4 Peter MacSporran, Nauru: The Constitution, p29 of draft manuscript, later published by Seaview Press (2007).
5 However, the Supreme Court of Nauru considered the meaning of Article 3 in the case of Dogabe Jeremiah v Nauru Local Government Council (‘Jeremiah’s case’)， and interpreted it in such a way as to render the Article practically meaningless. In this case Mr Jeremiah sought to enforce a right which he argued was conferred and guaranteed by Article 3, the right to ‘respect for his private and family life’. Mr Jeremiah, a Nauruan, wished to marry a non-Nauruan woman, but was denied the requisite consent from the NLGC. It was ‘argued that the right to respect for private and family life was an independent right and included the right to marry without limitation as to race or nationality.’
However it was argued for the NLGC that no such right existed in the Constitution, and that Article 3 is merely an introduction or possibly a guide to the subsequent Articles of Part II. As none of the subsequent Articles contained a right to respect for private and family life or a right to marry, the Constitution did not confer any such rights. The Court accepted the latter argument and held that Article 3 ‘is clearly not intended to refer to any pre-existing rights and freedoms but only to those set out in detail in Articles 4 to 13’.
It is important to note that many of the positive obligations from the ECHR appear only in Article 3, and not in any of the other provisions of Part II. This means most of the positive affirmations of rights that appear throughout the ECHR such as ‘everyone has the right to liberty and security of person’
and ‘everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life’， are not contained in their equivalent articles in Part II of the Nauruan Constitution, but are expressed together in positive terms only in Article 3. This suggests that Article 3 was intended to have substantive meaning.
6 The death penalty was long thought to be part of the law of Nauru, by virtue of the adoption in 1922 of the Criminal Code of Queensland (1899)； although the Code as adopted in 1922 had already been amended in Queensland to abolish the death penalty, in 1927 the Administrator of Nauru retrospectively changed the adopting provisions, so that instead of adopting the Code as it was in
force in Queensland on 23 September 1922, it was deemed to have been adopted as it was in force in Queensland on 1 July 1921, so that it preceded Queensland’s abolition of the death penalty. In Republic v Amoe (Criminal case No.6/1990)， the Supreme Court found that notwithstanding the action taken in 1927, the death penalty had no application in Nauru. The Court held that the 1927 could not be construed as retrospectively taking away in 1927 the right given to Nauruans in 1922 to a penal system without capital punishment, as it contained no express provision introducing the death penalty. As it affects a fundamental right, such express provision would have been necessary. In fact, because the case of Amoe was a case of murder, the Court need not have based its decision on the interpretation of the 1927 Ordinance, as Nauru had in 1922 also adopted the Criminal Code (Amendment) Ordinance 1907 of the Territory of Paua, which abolished the death penalty for murder.
The purported effect therefore of the 1927 was introduce the death penalty for prescribed crimes other than murder (including treason, regicide, etc).
7 It is very unlikely that the Parliament would introduce the death penalty, as Nauru is a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, and it is likely something that neither the Nauruan population nor the international community would tolerate.
8 The CRC met in the week after the referendum and resolved to conduct a survey in order to gain an understanding of the main reasons for the ‘no’ vote, in order that the CRC can decide whether it is worthwhile pursuing the proposed referendum amendments at a later date. However, because there are currently no members of parliamentary committees, due to the political stalemate, the survey has not yet taken place and may now be unlikely to proceed even when parliamentary committees are eventually filled. It appears from purely anecdotal evidence that the principal reasons for the failure of the referendum are likely to be: some people objected to being asked to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for all referendum amendments as a package, and would have preferred separate questions for each proposed amendment (notwithstanding that they are an interrelated package)； some people believe that the Constitution should not be amended in any respect because it was given to Nauru by her forefathers； some people opposed the idea of a popularly elected President, and so voted ‘no’ to the whole package； some people did not understand the content of the proposed amendments, and so voted
‘no’ out of caution； and some people were misled by misinformation actively disseminated by some civil society leaders in the lead up to the referendum, and so voted ‘no’ out of misapprehension that, in particular, their land rights would be detrimentally affected.
9 Because section C of this Report includes discussion of achievements, best practices, challenges and constraints, as well as discussion of key national priorities, initiatives and commitments to improve the human rights situation on the ground, the Report does not follow strictly the structure proposed by the Annex to HRC Resolution 5/1 by reiterating this material in two separate and subsequent sections (see proposed section D and E headings in Annex 1A to Resolution 5/1).
10 Article 73 of the Constitution provides that a person born in Nauru after Independence is a Nauruan citizen if, at the date of his birth he would not, but for the provisions of Article 73, have the nationality of any country. Article 72 has been broadened by the Naoero Citizenship Act 2005, so that a child with one Nauruan parent is entitled to be a Nauruan citizen.
11 Department of Education, 2009.
12 Miscellaneous Causes Case No.4 of 2006 NRSC 8.
13 Nauru National Census, 2002.
14 Nauru Bureau of Statistics, 2009.
15 Nauru Bureau of Statistics, 2009.
16 There is no legislation regulating or restricting the establishment of churches or the entry of church representatives； however government has typically used a provision of the Births Deaths and Marriages Act 1965-2009 relating to the authorisation of religious representatives to solemnise marriages as a means of restricting the ‘recognition’ of new churches. In 1998 the Supreme Court of
Nauru dismissed an application in which it was claimed that the government’s refusal to declare the International Christian Church to be a recognised religious denomination for the purposes of authorising Ministers of that church to solemnise marriages constituted a breach of the applicant’s right to freedom of religion. The Court held that it was permissible under clause (4) of Article 11 of the Constitution for the Republic to control the proliferation of competing religions in a small community, and that the applicant was not thereby compelled to be married by a Minister from a religious denomination that was not her own but could be legally married in a civil service (In the matter of an application under Article 14(1) of the Constitution filed by Ms Ruth Dagiaro, Misc.
cause No.10/1998).
17 Figures are taken from the report of the most recent census (2002)， which made the following notes in respect of the statistics on religious affiliation (p 18-19)： ‘A question on religion was included in the 2002 census questionnaire. While it was asked of all respondents, answering this question was not compulsory. Some care with interpretation is advisable, as the recorded religion of a respondent is the religion stated by the head of the household during the census interview, which may not be the same as the church/sect that each and every household member usually attends. That is, heads of households often report all household members as belonging to the church/sect he or she belongs to him- or herself.
Forty-five per cent of the Nauruan population report that they are members of the Nauru Congregational Church, with followers of the Roman Catholic faith and members of the Nauru Independent Church accounting for a further 35.6 per cent and 13.5 per cent respectively. Only 11 Nauruans claim not to follow any religion (0.1 per cent of the population)， compared to 18 per cent of non-Nauruan residents, of which the vast majority claim to adhere to other religions (42.6 per cent) or to the Roman Catholic faith (25.8 per cent).’ It should be noted that these statistics are likely to have changed since 2002, with the growing popularity of new churches, however the proportion of people identifying with some Christian denomination is likely to be relatively constant.