GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

May 31, 2012

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Dear Madam Secretary:

Subject: Human Rights: State Department Followed an Extensive Process to Prepare 

Annual Country Reports

Human rights are a central concern of U.S. foreign policy. Each year, in response to 

congressional mandates,1 the Department of State (State) issues its Country Reports 

on Human Rights Practices, an important source of information on human rights 

worldwide. The country reports—collectively known as the Human Rights Report 

(HRR)—cover internationally recognized civil, political, and worker rights as set forth in 

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. State’s 2010 HRR included country reports 

covering the status of human rights in more than 190 countries and spanning more than 

7,000 pages.2 The 2010 report noted that State attempted to make the country reports 

as comprehensive, objective, and uniform as possible in both scope and quality of 

coverage. 

Regarding State’s procedures for preparing the country reports, particularly the worker 

rights section, we examined (1) State’s process for making the country reports as 

comprehensive, objective, and uniform as possible, and (2) the extent to which State 

followed its process in preparing the worker rights section of the 2010 country reports. 

All U.S. free trade agreements signed since 2000 include provisions related to worker 

rights. Moreover, as we have previously reported, enforcement of labor laws continued 

to be a challenge in some countries with which the United States has free trade 

agreements.3

 

1

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Pub. L. No. 87-195, §§ 116(d) and 502B (codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. §§ 

2151n and 2304, respectively). 

State defines comprehensive as omitting no information of significant 

2

We refer to State’s 2010 country reports as the 194 individual country reports State published in April 2011 covering 

the human rights conditions in each country during 2010. We use the term HRR to refer to these country reports in 

addition to the introduction and appendixes issued concurrently. 3

GAO, International Trade: Four Free Trade Agreements GAO Reviewed Have Resulted in Commercial Benefits, but 

Challenges on Labor and Environment Remain, GAO-09-439 (Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2009).
Page 2 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

value; objective as including information impartially, regardless of whether a country is 

an ally or adversary; and uniform, as reporting similar types of information across 

country reports.

To examine State’s process for preparing the country reports, we reviewed relevant 

laws and State guidance. We met with State officials, including staff from the Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) who lead the process for preparing the 

HRR; we also met with other State personnel, including Foreign Service officers, who 

prepare, edit, and review the reports. In addition, we met with Department of Labor 

(Labor) officials who review the worker rights section of the country reports. To examine 

the extent to which State followed its process in preparing the worker rights section of 

the 2010 country reports, we reviewed that section in the reports for 25 countries: 20 

countries with which the United States has signed free trade agreements;

4 4 countries 

with which the United States is currently negotiating trade agreements;

5 and 1 country, 

Russia, which the World Trade Organization recently approved for accession.6 We 

assessed comprehensiveness and objectivity by identifying the types of sources that 

State cited in the worker rights section of the 25 country reports, in accordance with its 

instructions. We assessed uniformity by determining whether the worker rights sections 

in these 25 reports consistently used the criteria in State’s instructions. Further, we met 

with select State officials who prepared, edited, and reviewed these sections. We also 

interviewed officials from Labor, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), 

the International Labor Organization,7 human rights nongovernmental organizations

(NGO), and labor organizations, to obtain their views on the country reports’ 

comprehensiveness and objectivity. In addition, we contacted nine business groups to 

obtain their views on the worker rights section of the country reports. Only one of these 

groups agreed to meet with us; representatives of the other eight groups did not 

respond, said they did not follow labor issues, or did not have the time to meet with us. 

See enclosure I for additional information about our scope and methodology.

We conducted this audit from September 2011 to May 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 

plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

4

The United States has signed free trade agreements with Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, 

Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, 

Panama, Peru, Singapore, and South Korea. All free trade agreements signed since 2000 include provisions related 

to worker rights.

5

The United States is currently negotiating free trade agreements with Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Vietnam 

as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Other countries that are part of the Trans- Pacific Partnership Agreement, 

and with which the United States already has trade agreements are Australia, Chile, Peru, and Singapore.

6

Individual country references and examples in this report are included for illustrative purposes only and are not 

intended as commentary on human rights in those countries. In addition, the results of our analysis are not 

generalizable to the other 169 country reports included in the 2010 HRR.

7

The International Labor Organization is a United Nations agency whose mission is to bring together representatives 

from governments, employers, and workers to jointly shape policies and programs promoting decent work for all.
Page 3 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

Summary

State has an extensive process designed to make the country reports on human rights 

as comprehensive, objective, and uniform as possible. This process includes annually 

issuing detailed instructions, consulting and assessing information from multiple 

sources, and collaboratively and iteratively drafting and reviewing the reports. State 

issues instructions for preparing the country reports each year, outlining a consistent 

structure and describing, for example, the topics that should be included in each 

subsection. The instructions also, among other things, indicate that the country reports 

should build on the previous year’s reports and specify guidelines for new and updated 

content. In addition, the instructions state that staff preparing the country reports are to 

use and assess multiple sources, including host governments, local and international 

human NGOs, labor unions, and host country media as well as classified information. 

State officials told us that they also obtain information from business leaders and 

industry groups, although there is no legal requirement to do so. In general, according 

to State officials, Foreign Service officers—often on their first or second tour of duty—

prepare first drafts of the country reports with the assistance of other embassy 

personnel, and at some embassies, officers with expertise in labor-related issues draft 

the report sections on worker rights.8 DRL editors and subject matter experts lead the 

editing and reviewing of the draft reports, aiming to ensure that the reports are as 

comprehensive, objective, and uniform as possible; accurately reflect the status of 

human rights in each country; and treat issues consistently among countries. During this 

process, DRL obtains and addresses comments from reviewers within DRL as well as 

from other State bureaus and offices and from Labor. 

State generally followed its process for making the country reports comprehensive, 

objective, and uniform by obtaining expert reviews, consulting a variety of sources, and 

using a consistent structure in the worker rights section of the 25 country reports we 

analyzed. In addition to submitting the worker rights sections of each country report for 

general reviews as outlined in its production instructions, State submitted the sections to 

DRL’s Office of International Labor Affairs and Labor’s Bureau of International Labor 

Affairs. To make these sections as comprehensive and objective as possible, State 

cited or attributed information to a variety of sources—including governments, UN 

entities, labor groups, and human rights groups—consistent with its instructions. We 

found that all the worker rights sections of the 25 country reports we reviewed cited or 

attributed information to such sources. Our analysis showed that State also cited 

information from businesses or regarding business specific activities in 9 of the 25 

reports (36 percent) we reviewed. To make the worker rights sections as uniform as 

possible, our analysis also showed that the worker rights section of all 25 county reports 

followed a consistent structure, addressing the required elements of the worker rights 

section as outlined in State’s instructions. Officials at Labor, USTR, the International 

Labor Organization, labor groups, and human rights organizations told us that they 

viewed the country reports as accurate and objective and that they had not identified 

significant errors or problems with reported information. Many of these officials said that 

 

8

In this report, “embassies” includes all locations where State maintains Foreign Service personnel, such as 

embassies, consulates, and other Foreign Service posts. 
Page 4 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

they would prefer more in-depth coverage of labor issues but that they have other 

sources of information.9 They also recognized that worker rights are not State’s sole 

focus and that State must consider the length of the country reports in determining how 

much detail to include.

In commenting on a draft of this report, State noted that we accurately captured the 

complex process by which it prepared the 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights.

Background

State has issued the HRR since 1977 in response to the amended Foreign Assistance 

Act of 1961, which required State to report annually on the observance of, and respect 

for, internationally recognized human rights in countries that receive U.S. assistance or 

are United Nations (UN) members.10 The Trade Act of 197411 added a mandate that 

required the President to report on the status of worker rights for each beneficiary 

developing country under the Generalized System of Preferences.12 State has included 

a section on worker rights in the country reports since 1984.

The annual HRR consists of individual country reports covering the status of key

internationally recognized civil, political, and worker rights as set forth in the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948.13 

Generally, the country reports do not assess trends14

1. Respect for the integrity of the person

in human rights, compare 

countries, or place them in any order other than alphabetically by region. In each 

country report, State addresses the following topics: 

2. Respect for civil liberties

3. Respect for political rights 

4. Official corruption and government transparency

5. Governmental attitude regarding international and nongovernmental 

investigations of alleged violations of human rights

 

9

For example, Labor, in consultation with USTR and State, produces labor rights reports about countries with which 

the President is negotiating trade agreements, as required under the Trade Act of 2002. Additionally, Labor reports 

annually on the worst forms of child labor, focusing on the efforts of certain U.S. trade preference beneficiary 

developing countries to implement commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor through their legislation, 

enforcement efforts, policies, and social programs. 1022 U.S.C. §§ 2151n and 2304. By law the HRR is due on February 25 of each year. According to State, it has 

informed the congressional committees to whom it reports of the difficulty of meeting the statutory deadline. 11Trade Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-618, § 504 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 2464). 12The Generalized System of Preferences is a program designed to promote economic development in developing 

countries by providing duty-free entry of their goods into the United States. As part of the program, the President is 

required to report on worker rights in beneficiary countries.

13State bases its assessments of worker rights on internationally recognized worker rights as defined by the UN 

International Labor Union’s Declaration of Fundamental Principles. 14State includes some trend analysis for those countries where abuses are especially serious in the HRR introduction.
Page 5 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

6. Discrimination, societal abuses, and trafficking in persons

7. Worker rights, such as the right to organize and bargain collectively

Preparation of the HRR involves a significant commitment of State time and resources 

and results in a lengthy product.15 DRL oversees annual HRR production, including 

preparation of the country reports. The bureau includes regional and thematic offices 

with specific subject matter expertise. Examples of regional offices are Western 

Hemisphere Affairs and East Asia and Pacific, and thematic offices include the offices of 

International Labor Affairs and International Religious Freedom. Additionally, DRL 

leverages State’s network of overseas Foreign Service personnel who collect 

information on human rights practices, investigate incidents, and produce the initial draft 

country reports on human rights abuses in each country. These tasks are generally

undertaken by embassy human rights reporting officers, although they may receive 

assistance from other members of the embassy staff with specific subject matter 

expertise, such as labor officers.

The 2010 HRR included 194 individual country reports, an introduction, and appendixes 

and comprised more than 7,000 pages. The individual 2010 country reports varied in 

size from 9 pages for the Republic of San Marino to 145 pages for China.16 To make the 

information widely available, State publishes the HRR on its website and translates 

country reports into more than 50 languages, as mandated by law.

17

State Has Designed an Extensive Process to Meet Its Goal of Making the Country 

Reports as Comprehensive, Objective, and Uniform as Possible

To address its goal of making the country reports on human rights as comprehensive, 

objective, and uniform as possible, State has an extensive production process that 

includes annual issuance of detailed instructions, consultation with multiple sources, 

and collaborative and iterative drafting and reviews. 

State Issues Detailed Instructions and Offers Training for Preparation of Country 

Reports

State provides annually updated, detailed instructions for preparing the country reports. 

These instructions, which State generally issues in August each year, include guidelines 

for drafting the reports, an introduction to the process for producing the country reports, 

an outline of significant changes from the previous year’s instructions, and reporting 

practices. The instructions also outline a consistent structure for each country report, 

 

15State’s Office of Inspector General found that the HRR is among the most resource-intensive of the 310 

congressionally mandated reports for which State is responsible. See U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector 

General, Inspection of Department-Required and Congressionally Mandated Reports: Assessment of Resource 

Implications, report number ISP-I-11-11 (Washington, D.C.: 2010). 16The China report includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet. 1722 U.S.C. § 8222.
Page 6 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

specifying subheadings and content for each of seven sections and their subsections. 

State officials explained that these instructions are a key tool that State uses to make 

the country reports uniform. 

State’s instructions for preparing the 2010 country reports indicated that the starting 

point for the current year’s country reports are the previous year’s published country 

reports. The instructions stated that, whenever possible, embassy staff should update 

the 2009 country reports using examples from 2010 and should redraft sections as 

needed to reflect any major political developments or serious human rights abuses. In 

addition, the instructions provided guidance on identifying abusers and any subsequent 

punishment, citing sources, narrating the order and chronology of events, and 

determining what should and should not be included. For example, the instructions 

stated that government promises, intentions, draft legislation, and proposed government 

regulations should not be included prior to enactment or implementation. Further, the 

instructions included guidance for discussing human rights law versus human rights 

practices, noting that sections dealing with respect for specific rights must first describe 

rights provided by constitution or law, followed by actual practices. Foreign Service 

officers familiar with the instructions acknowledged that, per the instructions, only facts, 

not editorial remarks, should be included in the country reports.

State offers training broadly addressing human rights as well as training addressing 

labor rights,18 including some training focused on the country reports. For example, the 

Foreign Service Institute offers several courses covering human rights issues, some of 

which include a reporting component, and DRL and some bureaus provide training on 

reviewing the country reports. Foreign Service officers working on the country reports 

are not required to take State’s human rights or labor rights training, with the exception 

of the Foreign Service orientation course, and not all of the embassy staff drafting the 

country reports have taken relevant training. Embassy officials told us that in the 

absence of training, several factors had helped them in preparing the reports. These 

factors included using State’s detailed instructions, beginning the drafting process with 

the previous year’s country report, and receiving assistance from colleagues and 

supervisors with prior experience on the country reports. (See enclosure II for additional 

information about training for staff working on country reports.)

State Consults Multiple Sources in Preparing and Reviewing Country Reports

In preparing and reviewing the country reports, State personnel are to use information 

from multiple sources. State’s instructions for the 2010 country reports noted that 

personnel drafting the country reports are to include information from sources such as 

local and international NGOs, UN human rights bodies, and important regional 

institutions. According to Foreign Service officers preparing the reports and State 

officers reviewing the reports, the sources they consult include host governments, 

 

18In this report, “worker rights” and “labor rights” are used synonymously.
Page 7 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

international and local human rights NGOs, labor unions, and host country media.19 

Some Foreign Service officers involved in drafting 2010 country reports told us that they 

meet with host government officials, NGO representatives, labor advocates and union 

members, business leaders, and individual citizens and foreign workers in the host 

country to gather information on human rights abuses. In addition, those preparing and 

reviewing the reports use the Internet to locate foreign government sources of 

information or data and to corroborate information about events reported in other 

sources. Further, embassy officials and country report editors in Washington, D.C., may 

draw on classified information to verify facts or may include such information in a 

summary or otherwise unclassified manner.

The 2010 country report instructions indicated that State personnel drafting the reports 

are to evaluate the credibility of sources, particularly NGOs, since the quality of NGO

information may vary.20

State Collaborates Internally and Externally in Preparing and Reviewing Country 

Reports 

State officials told us that assessing multiple sources is a 

means of enhancing the comprehensiveness and objectivity of the country reports. 

According to State officials, the difficulties of producing the country reports include 

evaluating the credibility of human rights abuse allegations, as some governments and 

opposition groups differ about whether abuses occurred or, if they occurred, how to 

categorize them. These officials said that the Foreign Service officers preparing the 

reports may discuss, for example, whether an incident involving the killing of a union 

leader should be included in a country report as a violation of human rights or worker 

rights. In addition, assessing multiple sources allows report drafters to validate factual 

information or, if information varies between sources in a significant way, to incorporate 

contrasting data points or definitions. For example, the 2010 country report on Colombia 

included Colombia government estimates of 2010 trade unionist killings as well as 

estimates by a local labor rights NGO. The government reported that 34 trade unionists 

were killed, whereas the local labor rights NGO reported that 51 trade unionists were 

killed. The report noted that the estimates differed because of different definitions of 

trade union membership: the government’s definition included only one category of 

union membership, while the NGO’s definition included multiple categories. 

DRL leads a collaborative and iterative process for preparing, editing, and reviewing the 

country reports, involving Foreign Service officers and other embassy personnel, 

numerous other State staff and officials, Labor officials, and the National Security 

Council Staff in Washington, D.C. (See fig. 1.)

 

19The Foreign Assistance Act directs that for the purposes of compiling data and making assessments for the 

purposes of the human rights report, U.S. “diplomatic mission personnel shall consult with human rights organizations 

and other appropriate nongovernmental organizations.” 22 U.S.C. § 2151n. 20In addition to State’s annual instructions for country report preparation, other internal State guidance documents 

describe steps for drafting and reviewing the reports. For example, according to a DRL document provided to some 

Foreign Service Institute students, “Guiding Principles and Practical Tips for Human Rights Investigations,” staff 

investigating alleged human rights abuses “should verify information mainly by checking their consistency with 

independent sources” and ”objectively consider all the facts.”
Page 8 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

Figure 1: State’s Process for Preparing and Reviewing the Country Reports on Human Rights

a

DRL may also consult nongovernmental organizations in revising country report preparation instructions. b

Staff in DRL’s International Labor Affairs Office are the primary DRL editors for Section 7 on Worker Rights. c

Legislation mandates that the report be issued no later than February 25th each year; however, according to State, it 

has informed both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the difficulty 

of meeting the statutory deadline.

d

DRL has numerous offices, including the Offices of International Labor Affairs and International Religious Freedom.

e

According to State officials, selected country reports receive additional review by the Secretary of State and National 

Security Council staff based on the extent of human rights concerns, bilateral relations, and the likelihood of intense 

public scrutiny.

f

Labor reviews the portions of instructions and country reports related to worker rights.
Page 9 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

• Embassies draft country reports. Foreign Service officers assigned to the human

rights portfolio of responsibilities at embassies generally produce the initial report 

drafts, according to State officials. The assigned staff are often first or second 

tour officers who use the annual country report preparation instructions and may 

receive assistance from other embassy personnel, including their colleagues and 

supervisors. In addition, some embassies employ dedicated labor officers, whose 

role is to focus on labor-related programs and issues and to draft the worker 

rights sections of country reports.21 Last, according to State officials, some 

Foreign Service nationals help research and prepare country reports, although 

the level of participation of Foreign Service nationals varies widely from embassy 

to embassy.22

• DRL edits and reviews country reports. DRL leads and coordinates an iterative 

process for editing and internally reviewing the draft country reports. DRL editors 

and subject matter experts edit and review drafts to help ensure that the reports 

(1) comply with production instructions—for example, including all sections and 

subsections, addressing changes from the previous year, adhering to grammar 

and style practices, and properly attributing sources—and (2) accurately and 

objectively reflect the status of human rights in each country. During their draft 

reviews, DRL staff update some information in the reports and request additional 

information from the embassy about certain reported topics or cases. According 

to State officials, in addition to ensuring adherence to instructions and accurate 

reporting, DRL editors endeavor to ensure that the reports present relevant and 

useful information and treat issues consistently across countries. They are also 

charged with removing any judgmental or evaluative statements from the draft 

reports, which are intended to report facts without praise or criticism that may 

express a certain point of view. 

• Departments of State and Labor and National Security Council Staff review 

country reports. After DRL editors complete their reviews of the country report 

embassy drafts, they solicit and address comments from other subject matter 

experts within and outside State. Within State, numerous bureaus and offices 

review the draft reports, with State’s regional bureaus playing an important role in 

reviewing several report versions for countries in their regions and approving the 

final report language. For example, at State’s Bureau of East Asia and Pacific 

Affairs, the Vietnam desk reviews the Vietnam country report. State’s bureaus 

and offices review country report sections and content relevant to their areas of 

expertise; for example, State’s Office of Global Women’s Issues reviews country 

 

21State has 40 dedicated labor officer positions at various embassies around the world. Some embassies that do not 

have dedicated labor officers may employ labor reporting officers, who often have broader portfolios that include 

reporting on labor issues. 22Foreign Service nationals, sometimes referred to as locally employed staff, include both citizens of the host country 

and citizens of other countries. 
Page 10 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

report content on women’s rights.23 In addition, experts from Labor’s International 

Labor Affairs Bureau review the worker rights sections of all country reports. DRL 

staff work closely with relevant embassy and regional bureau personnel to 

incorporate stakeholder suggestions through multiple—generally three but 

possibly more—versions of the draft country reports. According to State officials, 

if reviewers identify errors or dispute draft contents during the review process, 

DRL works with the embassy to revise the report and resolve any disagreements. 

Once the embassy and the relevant regional bureau agree on country report 

content, and as the report is being finalized, DRL submits selected country 

reports for additional reviews by high-level officials. For example, the Secretary’s 

Office reviews selected country reports that are likely to receive intense public 

scrutiny by report users. According to State officials, the National Security 

Council Staff also review selected country reports. State officials noted that the 

reviews by subject matter experts are an important means of ensuring that the 

country reports are as comprehensive and objective as possible, since these 

individuals have access to potentially different sources of information and 

relevant expertise. State officials also noted that the multiple layers of review and 

content vetting help ensure that the country reports rarely exclude significant 

events and make the likelihood of a substantial factual error very low. 

• State releases country reports on its website and responds to feedback from 

individuals and host countries. DRL publishes the final HRR, including the 

country reports, on State and embassy websites, and State holds a press 

conference announcing the HRR’s release.24 Following the HRR’s online 

publication, DRL may receive comments from the public, including foreign 

governments and individuals. For example, according to State officials, other

governments sometimes express concerns or critiques to the embassy regarding 

the tone or contents of the published reports, and DRL works with the relevant 

U.S. embassy to evaluate such claims. State officials noted, and representatives 

of U.S. and international human rights organizations confirmed, that other 

governments commonly criticize the U.S. government for not publishing a report 

on its own human rights practices.25

 

23In addition to State’s regional bureaus, DRL solicits reviews and comments on the draft country reports from subject 

matter experts in State’s functional bureaus such as the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, the Bureau 

of Intelligence and Research, and the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.

State officials said that when they become 

aware of an error in an online published country report, they immediately correct 

it. State officials told us, for example, that after a published country report 

described a journalist as having been killed, the journalist contacted State to say 

that he was alive; State verified his identity and then revised the report to say that 

he had been injured. However, State officials said that they rarely revise 

24The HRR can also be accessed from DRL’s website, accessed April 26, 2012, http://www.humanrights.gov/. 25In 2010, the U.S. government issued its first report about its own human rights practices in response to a UN 

requirement. The Report of the United States of America Submitted to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human 

Rights in Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review is available at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/upr/, accessed May 

16, 2012. Additionally, the U.S. government complies with obligations to report to the UN concerning the 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, available at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/c16069.htm, accessed 

April 25, 2012.
Page 11 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

published country reports.26 In addition, State officials said that because they 

issue the country reports in electronic form only, they do not issue an erratum 

when they correct an error in a published report, and they do not keep a record of 

these corrections. According to State officials, because so many people around 

the world read the country reports, State will not risk its credibility by knowingly 

publishing inaccurate reports. 

State Generally Followed Its Process for Preparing the Worker Rights Sections of 

the 2010 Country Reports

State generally followed its process by obtaining expert reviews, consulting a variety of 

sources, and following a consistent structure in the worker rights section of the 25 

country reports we analyzed.27 

State Obtained Expert Reviews and Consulted Various Sources for 2010 Worker Rights 

Sections

State followed its process by obtaining multiple reviews of the draft country reports, 

including reviews by subject matter experts, to ensure comprehensive coverage of 

important issues and objective presentation of each report topic. In addition, our 

analysis of the 25 worker rights sections showed that State consulted a variety of 

sources. 

• Expert reviews. Officials at DRL’s Office of International Labor Affairs told us that, 

as worker rights subject matter experts, they reviewed the embassy draft of each 

worker rights section to help ensure that the reports included comprehensive 

coverage of key worker rights issues in each country and accurately and 

objectively discussed worker rights laws and practice. Beginning with the 2010 

country reports, these officials functioned as the primary editors for the worker 

rights sections. In addition, State officials from the other bureaus that review the 

reports had the opportunity to comment on the worker rights section. For 

example, DRL officials noted that comments from State’s Office to Monitor and 

Combat Trafficking in Persons are often particularly valuable for preparing 

relevant topics in the worker rights section such as child labor. Labor’s Bureau of 

International Labor Affairs also reviewed the reports. Reviewing officials whom 

we spoke with indicated that their reviews were intended to help ensure that the 

worker rights sections omit no significant information, include significant events, 

and present information objectively. Labor officials said that they reviewed the 

reports to make sure that they addressed salient issues or events in topics such 

as child labor, export processing zones, conditions of work, and occupational 

safety and health. These officials indicated that individuals with country and 

subject matter expertise also review reports to make sure that the reports capture 

key labor developments and events. Additionally, officials from Labor’s Office of 

 

26State could not quantify the number of revisions it has made to 2010 country reports, because it does not document 

this information.

27For more information regarding this analysis, see enclosure I. 
Page 12 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking noted that their review is 

intended to make sure that information included in the country reports is 

consistent with their own internal information. Other Labor officials said that they 

sometimes provide comments with updated data if information included in the 

worker rights section are outdated relative to Labor’s information. State did not 

provide examples of suggested edits for the 2010 country reports.

• Various information sources. We found that the 25 worker rights sections we 

reviewed cited or attributed information to a variety of sources, including 

governments, UN entities, labor and human rights groups, NGOs, and industry. 

In particular, we found that 24 of 25 reports specifically attributed information to 

both government and nongovernment sources.28 For example, our analysis of 

the worker rights section for the Dominican Republic identified citations for 

information from the host government, including its labor ministry; national and 

local labor groups; international organizations; NGOs; business groups; and 

several anonymous sources.29 In addition, nine reports specifically noted 

information from businesses or regarding specific business activities. For 

example, the worker rights section of the 2010 country report for Costa Rica 

noted that “there were reports that agricultural workers, particularly migrant 

laborers in the pineapple industry, worked in unsafe conditions,” but also that the 

Chamber of Pineapple Producers and Exporters disagreed with the reports. In 

another instance, the worker rights section of the 2010 country report for 

Colombia noted that child labor remained a problem in the production of several 

types of goods, including emeralds. The Colombia worker rights section also 

indicated that the Colombian National Emerald Federation signed an agreement 

with international partners including the U.S. Agency for International 

Development to, among other things, prevent child labor in emerald mines.30

State officials who contributed to 2010 country reports told us that they consulted 

with, and weighed information from, various sources, such as NGOs, host 

governments, business groups such as chambers of commerce, local and 

international media, and individual workers in preparing the worker rights 

sections. 

Officials at Labor, USTR, the International Labor Organization, and NGOs told us that 

the country reports worker rights sections did not leave out significant information. In 

addition, officials and individuals we spoke with from Labor and USTR, labor 

organizations, the International Labor Organization, and human rights NGOs said that 

they viewed the country reports as accurate and objective and that they had not 

 

28The worker rights section of the 2010 country report for Singapore did not directly attribute information to the 

government of Singapore.

29Anonymous citations may include individuals who remain unnamed because of safety concerns as well as 

unclassified summaries of classified information. 30Our analysis identifies the smallest possible number of sources from which State gathered information because 

country reports do not include a citation for every sentence. For example, State does not provide citations if doing so 

could put the source at risk of retribution. See enclosure I for more information regarding our analysis. 
Page 13 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

identified significant errors or problems with reported information.31 However, many 

officials said that they require more in-depth coverage of labor issues for their purposes

and noted that other sources of more comprehensive and detailed information are 

available. For example, a USTR official explained that although staff in his office find 

the country reports helpful as providing a broad summary of human rights conditions in 

a country, they work directly with embassy labor officers to acquire more detailed, up-todate information for use in trade negotiations or trade agreement monitoring. Officials 

we spoke with who use the country reports also recognized that worker rights are not 

the sole focus of the country reports and that State must consider report length in 

determining how much detail to include. 

State Used a Consistent Structure for 2010 Worker Rights Sections

We found that the worker rights section of all 25 country reports we reviewed followed 

the structure specified in the 2010 preparation instructions, which described in detail the 

information that worker rights section of each 2010 country report should include. For 

example, the sections each addressed these required five elements: the right of 

association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, prohibition of forced or 

compulsory labor, prohibition of child labor and minimum age for employment, and 

acceptable conditions of work.32 In addition, per State’s instructions, the worker rights 

subsections in all but the report for Singapore began with a discussion of worker rights 

provided by the country’s constitution or laws. The report for Singapore did not discuss 

laws regarding the right to bargain or organize collectively.

Agency Comments

We provided State with a copy of this draft report for review. State provided written 

comments, which are reprinted in enclosure III. State noted that we accurately captured 

the complex process by which it prepared the 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights. 

Additionally, Labor, State, and USTR provided technical comments on a draft of this 

report, which we incorporated, as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the 

Secretary of Labor, and the U.S. Trade Representative. The report will also be available 

at no charge on our website at http://www.gao.gov. 

 

31We interviewed representatives from labor organizations—the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial 

Organizations and the International Trade Union Confederation—and human rights NGOs—Human Rights First, 

Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House. 32State bases its assessments of worker rights on internationally recognized worker rights as statutorily defined by the 

1984 Generalized System of Preferences Renewal Act. State’s guidance on preparing the worker rights section 

summarizes the act as follows: “[The Act] states that internationally recognized worker rights include: ‘(a) the right of 

association; (b) the right to organize and bargain collectively; (c) a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or 

compulsory labor; (d) a minimum age for the employment of children; and (e) acceptable conditions of work with 

respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.’ All five aspects of worker rights are 

discussed in each country report under the section heading ‘Worker Rights’.” 
Page 14 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9601 or

melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 

contributions to this report are listed in enclosure IV.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas Melito

Director, International Affairs and Trade

Enclosures - 4
Page 15 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology

To examine the Department of State’s (State) process for preparing its Country Reports 

on Human Rights Practices, we reviewed relevant laws and department procedures and 

instructional documents. We also met with State officials who issue annual instructions 

for preparing the reports, including staff from State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor (DRL). In addition, we interviewed Foreign Service officers—human 

rights reporting officers and, in some instances, officers responsible for reporting on 

labor issues—who prepared the 2010 reports for Colombia, Jordan, Russia, and 

Vietnam, from the U.S. embassies in those countries. We selected these countries 

because, respectively, Colombia is a new U.S. free-trade partner, whose agreement 

was signed in October 2011; Jordan was the first country with which the United States 

signed a free trade agreement that included labor rights provisions; Vietnam is currently 

negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States, in the context of the TransPacific Partnership; and Russia has been approved for accession to the World Trade 

Organization. Additionally, we interviewed the DRL officials who served as editors and 

reviewers of the reports for those countries, including officials at DRL’s Office of 

International Labor Affairs and State’s regional bureaus. We also interviewed officials at 

the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, which assists in instruction 

preparation and report reviewing, as well as the Bureau of Economics and Business

Affairs, which reviews the country reports. We met with Department of Labor officials 

who have input into the annual instructions and who review the worker rights sections of 

the country reports. In addition, one of our staff attended a weeklong State-DRL course, 

“Promoting Human Rights and Democracy,” at State’s Foreign Service Institute, which 

included instructions on preparing the HRR. 

To determine the extent to which State followed its process in preparing the worker 

rights section of the 2010 country reports, we reviewed that section in 25 country 

reports. These reports included the 20 countries with which the United States has 

signed free trade agreements; 4 countries with which the United States is currently 

negotiating trade agreements; and 1 country, Russia, which the World Trade 

Organization approved recently for accession. We selected these 25 countries because 

they represent the universe of countries with which the United States has existing, new, 

and potential free trade agreements, since all free trade agreements signed by the U.S.

since 2000 have include provisions related to worker rights. The results of our analysis 

are not generalizable to the other 169 country reports included in the 2010 HRR. In 

addition, we met with State officials who prepared, edited, and reviewed the country 

reports for Colombia, Jordan, Russia, and Vietnam. We also interviewed officials from 

the Department of Labor; the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the International 

Labor Organization; human rights nongovernmental organizations, including Human 

Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House; and labor organizations, 

including the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations and 

the International Trade Union Confederation, to obtain their views on the country 

reports’ comprehensiveness and objectivity. Further, we contacted nine business 

groups, including the U.S. Russian Business Council, the U.S. Association of Southeast 
Page 16 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

Asian Nations Business Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce South East Asia 

Team, among others, to obtain their views on the worker rights section of the country 

reports. One group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Jordan, agreed to meet with us; 

representatives of the other eight groups did not respond to our outreach, said that they 

did not follow labor issues, or said that they did not have time to meet with us. 

To determine the extent to which the worker rights sections of the 25 country reports 

adhered to State’s instructions to consult various information sources in preparing the 

reports, we compared the types of sources cited in the reports with the types of sources 

that the instructions prescribe, such as U.S. and foreign government officials, victims of 

human rights abuse, academic and congressional studies, media reports, international 

human rights and labor organizations, and nongovernmental organizations concerned 

with human rights. To determine the types of sources that State used in its reporting, 

two analysts independently reviewed sources cited in the worker rights section of the 25 

sample country reports, categorizing 547 citations according to the type of source 

organization. The two GAO analysts then discussed and resolved any differences in the 

results of their review and source type determinations, and a supervisor reviewed and 

approved the final results of the analysis. We undertook this analysis because State 

could not provide us with all of the source materials consulted for any 2010 country 

reports; State officials indicated that they do not maintain all the supporting records or 

documentation used to compile the reports. Our analysis identified the minimum number 

of sources State consulted because source attribution is not required for every 

statement included in the country reports. For example, drafters are not required to 

provide citations for information that they have corroborated with multiple sources. 

Additionally, drafters and reviewers may have different writing style preferences. 

Therefore, the actual number of sources State consulted is likely to be greater than the 

number we identified.

To determine the extent to which country reports are uniform, we analyzed the worker 

rights section structure in the 25 country reports against the criteria outlined in State’s 

instructions. For this analysis, two GAO analysts independently reviewed the structure 

of the worker rights sections in the 25 selected 2010 country reports to verify that the 

reports followed these criteria. 

We conducted this audit from September 2011 to May 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 

plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
Page 17 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

Enclosure II: Training for Staff Working on Country Reports

State provides several forms of training on human and labor rights, some of it focused 

on preparation of the country reports. 

• State’s Foreign Service Institute offers several courses covering some aspects of 

human rights. First, the Foreign Service orientation, which all Foreign Service 

officers are required to complete, covers some aspects of human rights.33

Second, State established a focused human rights course in fiscal year 2011, to 

cover human rights issues previously included in a broader Global Issues course. 

Third, two courses for Foreign Service nationals address human rights content 

including preparation of the country reports. Fourth, the Foreign Service Institute, 

in coordination with State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor 

(DRL) and the Department of Labor, offers labor rights training, covering the 

skills and knowledge required to serve as a labor attaché or labor reporting 

officer and focusing on worker rights reporting, major domestic and international

labor issues, and related topics.34 

• Since fiscal year 2004, State, in collaboration with the Department of Labor, has 

provided regional labor rights training for Foreign Service officers and Foreign 

Service nationals, particularly those who may not have had the opportunity to 

attend the Foreign Service Institute labor course. For example, State hosted two 

3-day regional conferences in Cairo, Egypt, and Bangkok, Thailand, in fiscal year 

2010, and one in Miami, Florida, in fiscal year 2011, that included presentations 

from the Departments of Labor and State, Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative, American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial 

Organizations, and regional labor groups.35 According to State officials, the 

Foreign Service Institute, in conjunction with DRL, is developing distance 

learning courses for both human and labor rights issues, in an effort to minimize 

the cost associated with traveling for training.

• DRL and some bureaus provide training focused on preparation of the country 

reports. DRL provides country report review training to its country report editors 

as well as reviewers working in State’s regional bureaus. In addition, State 

bureaus such as Population, Refugees, and Migration conduct training for staff 

reviewing the country reports. Officials in this bureau also provided training to 

the DRL country report editors regarding reproductive rights and other issues to 

be addressed in the country reports.

 

33New officers also often take a course called “Political-Economic Tradecraft for Foreign Service officers,” which 

includes some discussion of human rights.

34The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative also participates in the labor rights training as a presenter. 35Miami, Florida, serves as a travel hub for posts in State’s Western Hemisphere Affairs bureau. 
Page 18 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

Staff working on the country reports are not required to take State’s human and labor 

rights training, with the exception of the Foreign Service orientation course, and not all 

of the embassy staff drafting the country reports have taken relevant training. Embassy 

officials told us that in the absence of training, State’s detailed instructions, beginning 

the drafting process with the previous year’s country report, and the assistance of 

colleagues and supervisors who had previously worked on the country report had 

helped them to successfully draft the reports.
Page 19 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

Enclosure III: Comments from the Department of State
Page 20 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report
Page 21 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report
Page 22 GAO-12-561R Human Rights Report

Enclosure IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Contact

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report were: Cheryl 

Goodman, Assistant Director; Julie Hirshen; Kathryn Bolduc; and Sada Aksartova. 

Martin de Alteriis, Grace Lui, Reid Lowe, David Hancock, Ann Baker, Etana Finkler, and 

Elizabeth Hegedus-Berthold provided technical assistance.

(320874)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.